I 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


gift  or 


Class 


THE  USE  OP  THE  SCRIPTURES 
IN   THEOLOGY 


THE  USE  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 
IN  THEOLOGY 


THE 

NATHANIEL  WILLIAM  TAYLOR  LECTURES 

For  1905 

GIVEN   BEFORE   THE   DIVINITY   SCHOOL   OP   TALE    UNIVERSITY 


BY 

WILLIAM   NEWTON   CLARKE,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY 
IN  COLGATE  UNIVERSITY 


CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 
NEW  YORK 1906 


Copyright,  1905, 
By  Chakles  Scribnek's  Sons. 


Published  May,  1905 


.   t    •  « 

«  •  •       4 


•    •  •••••••••    «i 


>  C     I 

*   •  •  • 


THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS,   CAMBRIDGE,  U.  S.  A. 


AD  MAJOREM  DEI  GLORIAM 

PER 

SCR1PTURAS  SANCTAS 


235405 


PREFACE 

These  lectures  were  delivered  before  a  school  of 
Theology,  but  their  purpose  is  popular,  quite  as 
much  as  it  is  professional.  They  are  intended  to 
serve  as  a  help  toward  the  right  using  of  the  Bible 
in  present  conditions,  whether  by  students,  by 
preachers,  or  by  the  people. 

There  is  a  widespread  impression  that  modern 
studies  upon  the  Bible  tend  to  diminish,  or  even  to 
destroy  its  value  for  the  purposes  of  theology  and 
religion.  Against  this  impression  these  lectures 
utter  a  protest  and  offer  reasons.  The  Bible  con- 
tinues to  be  the  unspeakably  precious  treasure  of 
Christendom,  and  will  retain  its  place  and  power  as 
the  manual  of  Christianity  and  the  book  of  God  for 
men.  But  its  place  and  power  must  be  preserved 
through  perfectly  frank  recognition  of  the  facts 
concerning  it,  and  use  of  it  for  exactly  what  it  is. 
Modern  study  shows  it  to  be  in  some  important  re- 
spects a  different  book  from  what  it  has  been 
thought  to  be,  and  it  is  necessary  that  we  learn  to 
use  it  in  a  manner  that  corresponds  to  its  character 
thus  ascertained.  Out  of  unbelief  or  fear  con- 
cerning the  future  of  the  Bible,  we  must  come  to 


Yiii  PREFACE 

a  living  confidence  in  the  abiding  value  of  our  holy 
book,  and  to  the  practice  of  using  it  in  the  new 
manner  which  our  new  understanding  of  it  requires. 
The  road  leads  forward:  return  to  old  methods  is 
impossible,  and  devotion  to  new  methods  that  are 
now  open  to  us  is  full  of  hope. 

These  lectures  point  the  way  toward  the  methods 
of  the  future,  which  the  present  needs  at  once  to  be 
taking  as  its  own.  Save  that  a  few  additions  have 
been  made,  they  are  published  as  they  were  deliv- 
ered, with  no  departure  from  the  style  of  direct 
address.  May  He  to  whose  service  they  are  dedi- 
cated make  them  helpful  to  his  children,  often  per- 
plexed in  the  present  controversies  over  the  book 
that  they  hold  dear  and  sacred. 

W.  N.  C. 

Colgate  University, 

Hamilton,  New  York. 


CONTENTS 


Page 

I.    The  Problem,  or  the  present  situation,  and  how 

the  wrong  using  of  the  Scriptures  has  wrought 

harm  to  Theology 1 

i 
II.   The   Principle,  or  how   Theology  in  using  the 

Scriptures  must  be  loyal  to  the  one  great  dis- 
tinction that  is  found  within  them 49 

III.  Results  Negative,  or  how  the  right  using  of  the 
Scriptures  removes  all  else  from  equality  with  the 
Christian  Message 88 


o 


IV.  Results  Positive,  or  how  the  right  using  of  the 
Scriptures  fills  Theology  with  the  Christian  glory, 
and  sets  the  Scriptures  in  the  place  of  power      .     127 


)     >       1 

1    '     •'  >  ' 


THE    USE    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES 

IN    THEOLOGY 


THE  PROBLEM 

These  lectures  on  the  use  of  the  Scriptures  in 
theology  come  forth  from  the  experience  of  one 
who  began  his  life  fully  inheriting  the  view  of 
the  Bible  that  was  prevalent  half  a  century  ago ; 
who  has  lived  till  now  through  the  period  of  in- 
vestigation and  change,  never  an  expert  in  bibli- 
cal studies  but  always  an  eager  watcher  of  the 
work ;  who  has  found  himself  borne  on  to  a  view 
of  the  Bible  unlike  that  which  he  inherited ;  who 
has  been  called  to  construct  a  system  of  theology ; 
who  has  used  the  Scriptures  in  that  work  with 
reverence  and  love,  and  in  deference  to  a  prince 
pie  that  seems  to  him  both  rational  and  Christian, 
though  he  might  wish  that  he  had  done  it  better 
justice ;  who  sees  the  Christian  people  sorely  per- 
plexed to  know  just  what  the  Bible  is  and  how 
it  ought  to  influence  their  beliefs,  now  giving  it 


••:  .• :  : 

•  ;••  •  ••••••• 

•2*;;'  : -tfe' St^PTURBfe  IN  THEOLOGY 

up  as  they  need  not  do,  now  grasping  it  desper- 
ately by  untenable  arguments  lest  they  lose  it, 
now  using  it  timidly  and  with  weak  reserve  be- 
cause they  are  uncertain  of  their  hold;  and  who 
feels  that  the  time  has  come  for  frank  discussion 
of  the  manner  in  which,  with  present  light,  the 
Scriptures  should  be  used  in  forming  theological 
belief,  whether  in  schools  of  divinity,  in  the  pul- 
pit, in  the  instruction  of  the  young,  or  in  the 
life  of  the  private  Christian. 

The  present  hour  will  be  spent  in  pointing  out 
the  problem  that  confronts  us  when  we  endeavor 
to  form  a  theology  by  the  aid  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  situation  is  the  problem. 

Let  us  imagine  ourselves  a  company  of  theo- 
logical revisers,  sitting  down  as  in  the  Jerusalem 
chamber  at  Westminster,  to  formulate  our  theol- 
ogy* We  are  Christians,  and  it  is  Christian  the- 
ology that  we  are  to  bring  into  expression  and 
order.  The  nature  of  our  task  is  set  before  us 
in  the  definition  of  theology ;  and  though  we 
might  define  the  term  in  various  ways,  probably 
we  shall  agree,  in  substance,  that  theology  is  the 
orderly  presentation  of  what  we  have  reason  to 
hold  as  true  concerning  God  and  the  relation  of 
men   to  him.     We  shall   treat  many  topics,  but 


THE  PROBLEM  3 

they  all  centre  here.  God,  man,  the  relations  be- 
tween the  two,  and  what  may  follow  therefrom, 
these  are  our  themes.  A  true  theology  would  be 
an  orderly  presentation  of  truth  concerning  these. 

Before  us  lie  the  Scriptures,  or  the  Bible.  And 
what  are  these  ?  The  Scriptures  are  those  writ- 
ings, ever  sacred  among  Christians  as  was  the 
older  part  among  the  Hebrew  people,  in  which 
is  preserved  the  record  of  Hebrew  and  early 
Christian  religion,  with  Jesus  Christ  and  his  gift 
to  mankind  as  the  crowning  element.  In  the 
older  part  we  find  the  long  story  of  religion  in 
the  Hebrew  race :  the  history  variously  told,  the 
ancient  laws,  all  attributed  to  God,  the  weighty 
words  of  prophets  spoken  in  the  name  of  God, 
the  songs  of  religion,  and  the  various  other  forms 
in  which  the  sense  of  God  expressed  itself.  But 
the  specialty  of  the  Bible  is  Jesus  Christ.  On 
these  pages  we  have  practically  all  that  we  know 
of  his  history  and  his  words.  He  uttered  the 
highest,  simplest,  most  self-evidencing,  most  final 
body  of  truth  concerning  God  and  the  relations 
of  men  to  him  that  this  world  has  ever  received ; 
and  here  we  find  it,  together  with  writings  that 
show  how  it  was  understood  by  receptive  minds, 
and  brought  into  life  as  a  transforming  power.     A 


4  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

rich  and  various  treasure  our  Bible  offers  us, 
both  in  religion  and  in  the  history  of  religion; 
and  as  the  crown  of  the  whole  we  have  the  no- 
blest view  of  religion  that  was  ever  known,  open- 
ing out  by  the  spiritual  power  of  God  into  the 
finest  life  with  God  that  was  ever  lived  by  men. 

Evidently  we  must  use  the  Scriptures  in  mak- 
ing our  theology.  Their  theme  is  our  theme. 
We  treat  of  God  in  his  relations  with  men,  and 
they  treat  of  the  same,  most  clearly,  luminously, 
divinely.  For  our  purpose  they  are  of  the  first 
importance,  and  we  cannot  dispense  with  their 
testimony.  They  must  be  used,  and  so  used 
that  their  high  contribution  shall  come  into  our 
theology  with  its  utmost  value. 

And  of  course  if  they  are  to  be  used  they  must 
be  used  for  what  they  are.  This  is  the  simple 
word  of  honesty.  In  using  them  we  must  rely 
upon  no  untenable  theories  or  unprovable  assump- 
tions, either  belittling  or  "exaggerating  their  value. 
As  a  whole,  and  part  by  part,  we  must  give  them, 
and  give  them  only,  the  weight  to  which  their  real 
value  entitles  them,  whatever  that  may  be.  And 
our  valuation  of  the  Scriptures  for  theological  use 
must  be  an  intelligent  valuation,  based  upon  all 
that    we    have   means   of   knowing  about  them. 


THE   PROBLEM  5 

Hence  we  must  make  it  our  business  to  know. 
Estimates  of  a  former  time  may  prove  correct  and 
adequate,  and  they  may  not,  —  that  is  for  us  to 
discover.  First  of  all  in  our  using  of  the  sacred 
book  is  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  truth  and  fact, 
the  solemn  and  conscientious  resolve  that  we  will 
receive  all  knowledge  about  the  Bible  as  it  comes, 
and  that  whatsoever  is  established  as  fact  and  truth 
shall  be  allowed  the  force  of  truth  in  our  theology. 
This  seems  an  easy  oath  to  take,  for  it  is  only  the 
common  vow  of  honesty ;  and  yet  it  may  not 
prove  an  easy  vow  to  keep,  for  powerful  influ- 
ences from  religion  itself  rise  up  to  tempt  us  away 
from  keeping  it.  Nevertheless  so  far  as  we  have 
light  we  must  use  the  Scriptures  for  exactly  what 
they  are.  Only  so  can  we  look  into  the  face  of 
God  when  he  asks  us  how  we  have  sought  to 
know  the  truth. 

The  problem  is  not  for  us  alone,  teachers  and 
students  in  theology.  It  is  for  all  people.  Thus 
far  there  has  been  no  book  so  influential  as  the 
Bible.  All  persons  who  feel  religion  to  be  a  vital 
concern  have  some  sort  of  theology,  and  all  Chris- 
tians look  to  the  Bible  as  chief  contributor  to  the 
theology  which  they  should  hold.  Therefore  they 
all  need  to  use  it  rightly,  and  for  just  what  it  is. 


6  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

By  what  process  is  the  man  in  the  street  to  be 
guided  by  the  Bible  in  his  theological  convictions  ? 
What  is  that  Bible  which  lies  on  eveiy  pulpit, 
gives  the  preacher  his  texts,  and  is  the  acknowl- 
edged guide  of  his  religious  teaching?  How  is 
it  to  be  conceived,  and  how  employed  for  his 
purpose?  What  is  the  book  that  is  opened  by 
every  Sunday-school  teacher  for  instruction  of  the 
young?  and  how  should  it  be  used?  That  these 
questions  are  not  settled  is  plain  to  all.  To-day 
there  is  a  scholarly  view  of  the  Bible,  and  there 
is  a  popular  view  of  the  Bible,  and  they  are  an 
appalling  distance  apart.  I  am  not  thinking  of  the 
varieties  into  which  each  of  these  views  is  broken 
up.  I  mean  simply  that  there  is  a  popular  reli- 
gious view  of  the  Bible,  fairly  recognizable  and 
fairly  well  agreed  upon,  and  that  there  is  in  like 
manner  a  well-accepted  scholarly  view,  which  is  not 
the  work  of  freaks  or  infidels  but  includes  a  mass  of 
facts  now  known  and  certain.  Between  these  two 
there  is  indeed  an  appalling  difference,  which 
nevertheless  must  some  day  be  overcome.  The 
problem  is  upon  us. 

It  might  seem  too  late  in  the  day  for  a  problem 
about  the  use  of  the  Scriptures  in  theology  to 
exist.    They  have  always  been  used,  and  we  might 


THE  PROBLEM  7 

think  the  right  method  must  have  been  settled 
long  ago  by  practice.  But  the  problem  lies  in 
the  nature  of  the  case.  A  theologian  must  judge 
what  his  documents  are,  how  he  stands  related 
to  them,  and  in  what  manner  they  bring  him  truth. 
If  we  were  the  first  makers  of  theology  we  should 
encounter  this  problem ;  as  it  is,  we  encounter  it 
increased  and  intensified  by  our  inheritance  from 
the  past. 

We  encounter  a  problem  of  the  present  time,  for 
just  now  the  question  what  the  Scriptures  are  is 
answered  in  new  ways,  after  new  studies.  If  we 
are  to  use  the  Scriptures  for  what  they  are,  it  is  I 
very  little  to  ask  that  we  should  put  them  in  their 
chronological  order  and  let  them  interpret  them- 
selves thereby.  Modern  study  proposes  a  new 
chronological  order,  which  makes  the  Bible  partly 
a  different  book.  It  puts  the  various  parts  in  new 
settings,  and  so  changes  their  effect.  This  must  be 
considered,  and  so  must  new  testimony  as  to 
authorship  and  quality.  And  in  general  (for  I  can- 
not recount  the  items  in  detail)  there  has  been  a 
vast  amount  of  intellectual  work  upon  the  Bible, — 
good  work,  by  honorable  methods,  but  work  that 
yields  for  theology  one-sided  results.  It  is  inter- 
rogative, critical,  analytical.     It  is  valuable,  but  its 


8  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

first  results  are  rather  negative  than  positive. 
Apparently,  the  immediate  and  visible  hold  of 
theology  on  the  Scriptures  has  been  weakened 
rather  than  strengthened  by  the  recent  biblical 
study.  Constructive  work  is  beginning  which 
will  help  theology  again,  but  it  is  not  yet  very 
far  advanced,  and  theology  waits  the  final  out- 
come. Just  what  the  available  biblical  material 
is  ultimately  to  be  is  not  quite  evident  as  yet.  So 
our  Bible  is  placed  in  our  hands  to-day  with  an 
open  question. 

But  we  inherit  objections  to  the  open  question. 
The  past  hands  us  our  Bible  in  a  very  definite 
fashion.  When  we  take  it  up  for  our  present  task 
it  comes  to  us  consecrated,  defined,  and  interpreted 
by  long  use,  upon  methods  that  have  become  as 
sacred  as  they  are  familiar.  All  religion  is  de- 
clared to  be  on  the  side  of  these  principles  and 
practices,  and  we  are  warned  in  the  name  of  God 
not  to  depart  from  them.  And  yet  it  remains  true 
that  we  must  decide  for  ourselves,  in  our  own  best 
light.  Must  the  modern  knowledge  be  silent  in 
the  presence  of  sacred  tradition,  or  must  sacred 
tradition  give  way  in  the  presence  of  modern 
knowledge?  Or  how  are  the  genuine  values  in 
both  to  be  preserved? 


THE   PROBLEM  9 

When  we  consider  these  ways  in  which  the 
Bible  has  already  been  used  in  theology,  it  does 
not  take  us  long  to  find  that  instead  of  solving 
our  problem  they  intensify  it.  We  inherit  from 
practices  that  have  embarrassed  theology  in  the 
past  and  burdened  it  with  perplexities  in  the 
present.  That  a  practice  is  established  and  ven- 
erable is  often  taken  to  be  a  pledge  of  its  value, 
whereas  it  may  be  only  a  chain  that  binds  upon 
us  a  needless  weight.  Theology  at  present  is 
struggling  to  be  free  from  certain  methods  of 
using  the  Scriptures  by  which  it  has  been  pre- 
vented from  coming  to  its  best  efficiency.  It  is 
part  of  our  problem  to  know  how  to  depart  from 
practices  that  have  become  sacred  and  yet  have 
done  injury  to  our  science. 

A  first  question,  if  we  are  to  use  the  Bible  in 
theology,  is  whether  we  are  to  use  it  all.  But 
question  at  once  opens  down  into  question.  What 
is  meant  by  u all" ?  How  much  is  included  in  the 
Scriptures?  Here  is  a  question  that  obviously 
underlies  our  whole  inquiry,  but  it  is  one  to 
which  scant  justice  has  been  done  in  the  history  of 
theology.  From  the  old  point  of  view,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Canon  is  much  more  important  than 
theologians  generally  have  made  it.      Before  the 


10  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

Bible  can  rightly  be  used  as  theology  has  been 
wont  to  use  it,  its  limits  ought  to  be  clearly  defined 
and  established :  it  ought  to  be  shown  exactly 
what  books  are  set  apart  as  sacred  writings,  and 
on  what  grounds  these  very  ones  are  entitled  thus 
to  be  distinguished  from  all  others.  To  justify 
such  use  as  has  prevailed,  there  is  need  of  a  clear 
and  conclusive  doctrine  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture, 
—  a  need  that  has  been  greatly  overlooked.  It  is 
a  very  singular  fact  that  Protestant  theology  has  so 
steadily  assumed  the  Protestant  Canon  as  divinely 
authorized,  when  the  current  manner  of  using  the 
Scriptures  required  it  to  be  clearly  proven.  A 
part  of  the  present  problem  results  from  this,  for  a 
sacred  book  is  offered  for  our  use,  and  we  are  asked 
to  employ  it  in  a  manner  that  calls  for  more  at- 
tention than  has  been  given  to  the  proof  of  its 
separateness  from  all  other  books. 

But  we  will  take  the  familiar  book  that  lies 
before  us,  and  return  to  our  inquiry  whether  in 
theology  we  are  to  use  it  all.  Is  it  an  equal 
book,  to  be  received  as  teaching  us  truth  in  all 
its  parts?  In  Protestant  theology  it  has  been 
common  to  regard  the  Bible  as  a  single  source. 
That  the  Bible  is  a  library,  a  collection,  has 
indeed    been    always  known,    but    the    working 


THE   PROBLEM  11 

theory  has  rather  been  that  the  Bible  is  a  book, 
available  in  all  its  parts  for  the  service  of  the- 
ology. A  statement  by  a  biblical  writer  in  any 
part  of  the  book  has  been  considered  valid  for 
theological  use,  and  material  has  been  gathered 
with  equal  hand  from  the  entire  range  of  the 
Scriptures.  Of  course  it  has  been  understood 
that  passages  must  be  interpreted,  and  the  his- 
torical setting  has  not  been  wholly  overlooked, 
but  neither  has  it  been  sufficiently  regarded.  It 
has  been  assumed  that  anything  in  the  Bible  may 
be  wrought  into  theology;  nay,  more,  —  that 
everything  in  the  Bible  must  be  wrought  into 
theology.  Since  the  whole  Bible  is  the  equal 
text-book,  a  satisfactory  theology  must  work  in 
all  biblical  statements.  A  system  that  left  some 
biblical  utterances  outside,  not  accounted  for  in 
its  scheme  of  thought,  would  be  regarded  as 
unsound  and  in  need  of  revision.  Theology  must 
be  scriptural,  and  to  that  end  must  ignore  no 
thought   expressed   in   the   Scriptures. 

In  this  the  history  of  the  Canon  has  been  well 
forgotten,  for  in  the  forming  of  the  Canon,  of  the 
Old  Testament  or  of  the  New,  the  full  equality  of 
all  the  writings  was  never  held.  But  that  was  a 
long  time  ago  ;  and  with  the  one  sacred  volume  so 


12  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

long  in  hand  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  church 
has  formed  the  habit  of  using  it  as  alike  through- 
out. In  our  present  enterprise  we  have  to  decide 
whether  this  is  still  to  be  our  practice.  Upon 
the  question  itself  we  shall  probably  have  little 
difficulty,  for  to-day  every  intelligent  student 
knows  that  the  ancient  method  is  wrong.  For 
the  purposes  of  theology  the  Scriptures  are  not  of 
equal  value  throughout.  Some  parts  of  the  Bible 
contribute  to  theology  as  others  do  not.  But  this 
only  opens  our  problem.  Distinctions  are  to  be 
made  within  the  Bible,  —  that  seems  certain.  It 
is  my  aim  in  these  lectures  to  show  what  the  right 
distinction  is,  but  at  present  another  point  is  before 
us.  One  serious  part  of  our  difficulty  lies  in  the 
fact  that  we  have  to  deal  with  a  book  that  has  been 
employed  in  this  wrong  way  so  long.  The  book 
that  we  open  is  saturated  with  effects  from  the 
long  misuse.  It  has  injurious  traditions  bound  in 
with  it,  which  threaten  thus  to  continue  the  harm 
to  theology  which  the  long  misuse  has  wrought. 
For  theology  is  suffering  heavily  to  this  day  from 
the  consequences  of  treating  the  Bible  as  equal 
throughout  for  theological  purposes.  These  con- 
sequences enter  into  our  problem. 

One  injurious  result  is  that  even  until  now  the 


THE  PROBLEM  13 

Old  Testament  has  been  given  disproportionate 
weight  in  theology,  and  the  New  Testament  has 
been  deprived  of  its  rightful  primacy. 

That  the  New  Testament  must  have  high 
primacy,  if  theology  is  to  be  Christian,  needs  no 
proof.  In  theory  no  one  questions  it.  Christ 
stands  first,  worthy  of  the  highest  honor.  The 
whole  testimony  of  Christianity  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  excelled  by  the  New, 
and  in  an  important  sense  superseded  by  it.  But 
when  the  whole  Bible  lies  as  one  book  before  the 
framer  of  theology,  with  all  its  parts  expected  to 
contribute  with  equal  right,  the  advantage  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  contributor  immediately  appears. 
It  is  sure  to  offer  more  than  its  rightful  share.  It 
is  the  larger  book.  It  is  more  pictorial  in  its 
modes  of  representation  than  its  companion.  It 
is  more  anthropomorphic,  and  more  given  to 
expressing  truths  by  means  of  institutions.  It 
thus  excels  in  quick  suggestiveness,  and  has  a 
fascinating  figurativeness  of  mode,  appealing  to 
taste  for  the  typical  and  allegorical.  Moreover, 
in  spite  of  all  its  lofty  passages,  the  Old  Testament 
is  less  spiritual  than  the  New,  and  therefore  less 
exacting ;  for  law,  stern  though  it  seems,  is  really 
far  less  exacting  than  spiritual  life,  and  the  re- 


14  THE  SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

ligion  that  was  before  Christ  demanded  less  of 
men  than  he  requires.  By  its  external  and  visible 
methods  in  representing  the  relation  between  God 
and  men  the  Old  Testament  offers  a  less  spiritual 
appeal,  but  one  that  strikes  quickly  into  the  likings 
of  humanity.  It  has  always  been  so  interpreted 
as  to  provide  a  divine  sanction  for  the  spirit  and 
practice  of  legalism ;  and  legalism  coming  with 
divine  credentials  meets  a  ready  welcome  from 
human  nature  that  loves  it  all  too  well,  and  finds 
the  door  into  theology  wide  open.  In  a  word,  the 
Old  Testament  is  such  a  book  in  comparison  with 
the  New  that  to  over-exalt  it  is  to  unspiritualize 
theology.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  has  been 
over-exalted  far.  The  third  chapter  of  Genesis 
has  been  more  influential  upon  the  doctrine  of  sin 
than  all  the  words  and  attitude  of  Jesus.  The 
book  of  Leviticus  has  done  more  to  give  form  to 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  than  any  single  book 
of  the  New  Testament.  Legalism  has  entered 
theology  through  the  open  door,  and  found  per- 
manent lodgment  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement. 
The  book  of  Daniel,  with  the  Apocalypse,  its 
companion  in  pre-Christian  type,  has  influenced 
eschatology  so  profoundly  that  the  opposing  views 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  could  not  even  be  noticed. 


THE   PROBLEM  15 

Ethical  perplexities  coming  over  from  the  early- 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  have  influenced  the 
popular  conception  of  God  so  deeply  that  Jesus' 
revelation  of  the  Father  could  not  have  free 
course.  Thus  in  many  ways  theology  has  been 
limited  in  its  spiritual  freedom  through  dictation 
from  those  Scriptures  which  Christ  expressly 
threw  into  the  background.  If  we  are  to  build 
up  Christian  doctrine,  we  must  find  a  better  way 
of  using  the  Old  Testament  than  theology  has 
usually  followed. 

The  doctrine  of  an  equal  Bible  has  wrought  a 
similar  result  within  the  New  Testament.  The 
words  of  Jesus  have  not  been  prized  above  those 
of  his  disciples. 

When  at  the  front  of  Christianity  there  stands 
One  who  is  esteemed  not  only  as  God's  messenger 
but  as  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  it  would  seem 
that  the  first  question,  far  in  advance  of  all  others, 
must  be,  "  What  did  the  Master  say  ? "  But  in 
theology  the  question  has  rather  been,  "  What  do 
the  Scriptures  say  ?  "  and  every  writer  in  the  New 
Testament  has  been  cited  as  representing  the 
eternal  truth  just  as  really  as  the  Lord.  The 
Lord  has  not  stood  above  the  Scriptures,  and 
the  divine  Master  has  not  stood  above  his  own 


16  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

disciples.  They  all  have  been  raised  to  his  level. 
A  disciple's  view  of  Jesus  has  been  esteemed  just 
as  authoritative  as  Jesus'  view  of  himself,  and  a 
disciple's  view  of  God  just  as  authoritative  as 
Jesus'  view  of  God.  An  evangelist's  interpreta- 
tion of  what  Jesus  said  has  been  lifted  to  the 
level  of  the  word  interpreted.  A  mood  and  tense 
chosen  by  Paul  for  use  has  been  taken  to  be  just 
as  revelatory  of  divine  realities  as  the  teaching  of 
the  Lord.  This  on  the  ground  that  the  inspira- 
tion of  God  made  the  disciple-writers  equal  to 
the  Word  made  flesh  in  witnessing  to  the  truth, 
as  all  high  doctrine  of  inspiration  holds.  But  they 
never  claimed  such  equality,  and  no  one  in  their 
own  time  knew  that  they  had  it;  and  we  can 
well  imagine  what  the  disciples,  adoring  Jesus 
as  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  would 
have  said  if  they  had  known  that  their  authority 
would  one  day  be  quoted  as  equal  to  his.  I  sus- 
pect they  would  have  written  nothing.  How  the 
teachings  of  the  Master  and  the  words  of  his 
disciples  do  really  compare  with  one  another,  and 
how  Christian  testimony  from  secondary  sources 
ought  to  influence  our  thought  in  theology,  we 
must  judge,  and  this  enters  into  our  problem. 
But  we  must  seek  to  avoid  the  injustice  to  our 


THE   PROBLEM  IT 

sources  and  the  injury  to  theology  that  have  come 
from  equalizing  the  disciples  with  their  Master, 
or  the  Master  with  his  disciples. 

In  general  it  follows  from  the  practice  of  using 
the  Scriptures  as  equal  throughout,  that  the- 
ology has  been  prevented  from  distinguishing 
the  Christian  element  in  the  Scriptures  from  the 
other  elements.  Even  more,  —  the  doctrine  of 
equality  leads  toward  denial  that  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  the  Christian  element  there.  Many  a 
devout  Christian  would  be  deeply  shocked  at  the 
mention  of  a  Christian  element  in  the  Bible.  A 
Christian  element?  then  there  must  be  elements 
in  the  Bible  that  are  not  Christian:  and  many 
lovers  of  the  holy  book  would  feel  such  a  sug- 
gestion to  be  genuine  profanity.  The  Bible  is 
the  book  of  Christianity,  is  it  not?  and  must  it 
not  be  all  Christian?  But  we  must  talk  of  a 
Christian  element  in  the  Bible,  if  we  are  to  talk 
of  things  as  they  are,  and  of  elements  that  are 
not  Christian.  It  is  quite  superfluous  to  prove 
this,  as  soon  as  we  note  what  it  means,  that  Christ 
came  late  in  the  period  of  Scripture -making.  Be- 
tween the  Jewish  and  the  Christian,  Paul,  as  we 
know,  recognized  a  tremendous  difference,  and  if 
we  fail  to  recognize  the  same  it  is  only  because 

2 


18  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

our  eyes  are  blinded  by  tradition.  If  Paul  could 
read  our  present  Bible  as  it  stands,  he  would  have 
no  difficulty  in  telling  whether  it  was  all  Christian 
or  not,  or  in  distinguishing  the  Christian  element 
amid  large  variety.  It  is  the  prime  need  of  the- 
ology to  distinguish  the  Christian  element  in  the 
Scriptures  from  everything  else  that  lies  beside  it 
there.  Yet  when  we  take  up  our  Bible  for  use 
in  theology  we  take  up  a  book  in  which  this 
sure  distinction  has  become  obscured  by  ages  of 
practice,  and  the  obscuring  is  commended  and 
commanded  by  the  very  reverence  which  the 
sanctity  of  the  book  inspires.  Of  course  such 
obscuring  of  a  qualitative  distinction  works  both 
ways  to  the  injury  of  theology.  It  deprives  the 
Christian  element  of  that  primacy  to  which  the 
supreme  rank  of  Christ  entitles  it,  and  it  burdens 
theology  with  a  mass  of  material  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  required  to  carry.  When  the  pre-Christian 
matter  in  the  Bible  is  raised  to  the  level  of  Christ, 
there  is  forced  into  theology  a  body  of  incongruous 
thought  that  must  confuse  its  judgment  and  keep 
its  conclusions  on  too  low  a  plane.  Tradition  has 
done  theology  a  serious  harm  in  the  name  of  rever- 
ence for  the  Scriptures,  and  the  question  how  to 
undo  this  injury  is  a  part  of  our  problem. 


THE   PROBLEM  19 

We  mav  well  wonder  how  this  doctrine  of 
equality  in  the  Scriptures  ever  found  an  honor- 
able standing.  As  I  have  said,  the  history  of 
the  Canon  shows  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  idea 
in  accordance  with  which  the  two  collections  were 
originally  made.  But  aside  from  historical  con- 
siderations, an  intelligent  reading  of  the  Bible  is 
enough  to  scatter  the  theory  to  the  winds.  If 
to-day  we  read  the  Bible  straightforwardly  in 
preparation  for  forming  our  theology,  we  shall 
find  the  inequality  of  it  for  theological  purposes 
visible  throughout.  No  specialist's  eyes  are  re- 
quired to  discern  it,  for  it  lies  on  the  very  surface. 
We  can  account  for  the  doctrine  only  by  remem- 
bering that  the  Bible  is  in  a  way  the  least  intel- 
ligently read  of  books.  A  Christian  has  usually 
read  his  Bible  with  the  reverent  assumption  that 
it  all  comes  directly  from  God  to  him.  This 
prejudgment  effectually  blinds  him  to  the  inequal- 
ities, or  assures  him,  if  he  observes  them,  that 
they  must  be  only  apparent.  The  pages  of  the 
Bible  contain  an  amount  of  unnoticed  facts  that 
is  perfectly  amazing ;  and  the  spirit  that  declines 
to  notice  them  is  often  the  spirit  of  the  deepest 
reverence.  The  ordinary  reader  daily  slides  over 
unnoticed  facts  enough  to  make  a  deep   change 


20  THE  SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

in  his  conception  of  the  Bible  if  he  observed 
them,  and  to  compel  him  to  read  it  as  a  different 
book.  And  when  we  pass  beyond  ordinary  read- 
ing and  inquire  about  the  status  of  the  doctrine 
of  equality  in  the  presence  of  modern  knowledge 
of  the  Bible,  the  answer  to  our  inquiry  is  short 
and  decisive.  In  the  light  of  what  all  scholars 
know,  the  equality  of  the  Bible  for  the  purposes 
of  theology  absolutely  disappears.  What  ordinary 
intelligent  reading  suffices  to  show,  that  more 
thorough  reading  which  we  call  criticism  estab- 
lishes beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt :  and  though 
to  some  ears  the  word  criticism  has  an  unspiritual 
sound,  yet,  after  all,  criticism  is  nothing  but  com- 
petent and  candid  examination.  No  one  now  has  a 
right  to  draw  upon  the  Bible  for  theology  as  if 
all  parts  of  it  could  serve  the  purpose.  What- 
ever we  do,  we  must  make  distinctions  in  the 
Scriptures  before  we  can  use  them  in  theology. 
What  distinctions  to  make,  and  how  to  make 
them,  is  our  problem. 

The  necessity  suggests  one  worthy  modern  dis- 
cipline, through  wliich  theology  is  struggling 
toward  freedom  in  its  use  of  Scripture.  That 
discipline  is  Biblical  Theology,  which  has  for  its 
object  the  differentiation  of  the  theological  thought 


THE   PROBLEM  21 

of  the  Scriptures  into  its  component  parts.  It  is 
a  study  of  the  facts,  an  examination  into  reality. 
It  lays  our  Bible  open  before  us  as  it  is,  for  the- 
ological use.  Its  entrance  to  the  field  is  a  worthy 
sign  that  theology  is  aware  of  its  problem  and 
will  not  be  content  without  a  rational  solution. 
Long  ago  some  one  said  of  Bruder's  Concordance 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  an  unobtrusive 
but  indispensable  work,  superseded  only  through 
progress  in  textual  criticism,  that  it  performed 
the  service  of  pile-driving  for  theology.  Similar 
value  attaches  to  all  sound  and  thorough  biblical 
work,  whether  critical,  historical,  or  analytical, 
and  especially,  perhaps,  to  the  analytical  work  of 
Biblical  Theology,  through  which  general  Chris- 
tian theology  is  seeking  the  liberty  and  power 
which  a  right  knowledge  of  its  materials  will 
afford.  This  fine  science  simply  hands  over  to 
theology  an  unequal  Bible,  with  its  theological 
inequalities  discovered,  marked  upon  it,  and  clas- 
sified for  Christian  wisdom  to  use.  The  vogue 
of  Biblical  Theology  is  the  death  of  the  doctrine 
of  an  equal  Bible. 

The  doctrine  of  an  equal  Bible,  as  I  have  now 
described  it,  has  never  stood  by  itself  constituting 
a  whole.     It  has  always  been  a  part  of  the  doc- 


22  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

trine  of  a  Bible  equally  authoritative  throughout, 
or  rather,  the  doctrine  of  Scriptures  authoritative 
as  Scriptures.  As  soon  as  we  open  our  Bible  as 
contributor  to  theology,  we  encounter  the  question 
whether,  and  how  far,  and  in  what  sense,  this 
body  of  writings  is  for  us  authoritative.  In 
these  lectures,  as  a  whole,  I  hope  to  make  plain 
what  seems  to  be  the  truth  concerning  this  matter. 
At  this  moment  I  am  concerned  only  with  the 
problem  which  our  open  Bible  presents,  and  es- 
pecially with  the  perplexing  elements  which  long 
usage  in  the  past  has  bequeathed  to  us ;  and 
to  the  doctrine  of  authority  we  are  indebted  for 
a  part  of  the  perplexing  bequest. 

"When  the  Reformers  rejected  the  authority  of 
the  church  they  accepted  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  Since  their  day  it  has  been  generally 
held  by  Protestants  that  the  Scriptures  as  Scrip- 
tures are  invested  with  full  and  final  authority 
for  theology,  so  that  all  genuine  testimony  of 
theirs  on  topics  involved  is  to  be  received  as 
certain  and  binding  because  it  comes  from  them. 
There  is  no  other  voice  on  earth  like  theirs,  for 
their  voice  is  the  voice  of  God.  They  hand  over 
to  theology  their  entire  contents,  to  be  accepted 
without  question   and   wrought  into   the  system 


THE  PROBLEM  23 

that  is  to  be  formed.  Theology  is  not  at  liberty 
to  decline  their  testimony,  or  to  dissent  from  it. 
The  equality  of  the  Bible  for  theology  means  an 
equal  and  complete  authority. 

We  well  know  how  strong  and  urgent  this 
doctrine  has  been.  "  What  saith  the  Scripture  ?  " 
has  been  the  test  question  in  theology,  with  the 
understanding  that  whatever  the  Scripture  may 
have  said  is  final.  This  understanding  has  been 
built  in  most  firmly  to  the  general  Christian 
thought,  so  that  the  holding  of  any  other  view  is 
still  widely  regarded  as  destructive  to  theology 
and  treasonable  to  God.  Yet  the  doctrine  has  not 
had  so  beneficent  an  effect  as  its  reverent  motive 
would  lead  us  to  look  for.  The  doctrine  of 
authoritative  words  ought  to  be  accompanied  by 
the  practice  of  utmost  diligence  and  intelligence 
in  ascertaining  what  the  words  mean,  for  certainly 
we  need  to  know  exactly  what  it  is  that  is  taught 
us  by  divine  authority.  No  other  practice  ought 
to  be  tolerated  by  those  who  hold  the  written 
words  in  reverence  so  high.  Sometimes  this 
requirement  has  been  loyally  fulfilled,  but  some- 
times it  has  not,  to  the  great  injury  of  theology. 
The  doctrine  of  biblical  authority  has  very  often 
been   accompanied   by   the   idea   that   the    divine 


24  THE    SCRIPTURES   IX   THEOLOGY 

meaning  in  the  Word  is  spiritually  simple,  and 
any  sincere  soul  can  understand  it ;  which  has  led 
to  the  claim  that  whatever  any  earnest  Chris- 
tian may  have  found  in  the  Bible  is  of  that 
divine  substance  which  no  one  is  at  liberty  to 
reject.  This  impression  that  the  spiritual  mean- 
ing is  plain  has  led  to  the  undervaluing  of  careful 
interpretation,  and  to  a  distinct  prejudice  against 
such  means  of  interpretation  as  are  not  distinctly 
spiritual  in  their  nature.  Reverence  for  authority 
has  thus  been  turned  to  the  disparagement  of 
scholarship.  The  same  impression  has  led  to 
much  narrowness  and  uncharitableness  of  judg- 
ment as  to  what  it  is  that  all  Christians  are  bound 
to  believe  on  the  authority  of  God.  Thus  the 
doctrine  of  authoritative  Scriptures  has  not  borne 
so  high  a  quality  or  done  so  good  a  service  as  it 
ought,  when  its  traditional  methods  were  sancti- 
fied all  along  by  genuine  reverence  for  God  in 
his  Word. 

The  long  use  of  the  Scriptures  upon  this  princi- 
ple, as  authoritative  and  final,  has  brought  about 
a  group  of  injurious  consequences  that  enter  into 
our  present  problem  in  theology. 

If  we  are  to  receive  our  Scriptures  as  abso- 
lutely authoritative,  we  have  first  to  assent  to  the 


THE   PROBLEM  25 

ground  on  which  their  authority  rests.  The  doc- 
trine of  an  equal  and  final  authority  stands,  his- 
torically, upon  the  foundation  of  an  equal  and 
infallible  inspiration.  On  no  other  foundation 
has  it  ever  been  supposed  to  stand.  Not  because 
these  writers  had  authority  of  their  own,  not 
because  they  knew  the  truth  so  perfectly  as  to 
be  entitled  to  think  for  us,  has  the  Bible  been 
regarded  as  authoritative  in  theology,  but  solely 
because  the  eternal  Spirit  gave  to  these  writers 
truth  and  thought  and  words,  and  thus  imparted 
his  own  infallibility  and  authority  to  what  they 
wrote.  On  no  other  foundation  could  such  an 
authority  stand.  But  when  we  open  our  Bible 
to-day  we  open  a  book  that  is  undergoing  exam- 
ination on  the  inductive  method.  Our  generation 
is  learning  to  read  the  Bible  in  the  historical 
light,  and  let  the  book  itself  show  what  it  is. 
We  seek  to  discover  how  these  utterances  came 
to  be  made,  and  what  they  meant  to  the  men 
who  made  them.  The  result  is  that  the  better 
we  know  the  Bible  in  this  manner,  the  less  does 
it  match  the  theory  of  an  inspiration  that  imparts 
infallibility  to  all  its  statements,  or  even  to  all 
its  utterances  in  the  field  of  religion.  There  is 
no   claim   of    such   inspiration,   and   there    is   no 


26  THE  SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

proof  of  it.  The  high  doctrine  proves  untenable, 
and  consequently  it  is  passing  out  of  sight. 
Those  who  hold  it  modify  it  so  as  really  to 
destroy  it,  —  for  such  a  doctrine  is  intolerant  of 
modifications,  since  it  is  nothing  if  not  perfect. 
The  high  qualities  of  the  Bible  are  of  another 
kind,  and  the  doctrine  of  an  inspiration  that 
imparts  infallibility  and  direct  divine  authority 
to  the  entire  body  of  the  Scriptures  is  no  more. 
But  out  of  the  history  of  the  matter  it  has  come 
to  pass  that  theology  is  burdened  in  the  name 
of  reverence  for  God  with  the  weight  of  an  unten- 
able doctrine.  To  this  day  Christian  theology 
is  supposed  to  be  grounded  in  the  doctrine  of  an 
infallible  inspiration.  The  outside  world  may  be 
excused  for  understanding  it  thus,  in  view  of  the 
long-asserted  claim  of  theology  itself:  but  now 
the  outside  world  has  heard  on  good  evidence 
that  a  sound  theology  cannot  be  built  on  such  a 
foundation,  since  the  doctrine  is  not  true.  Never- 
theless on  that  foundation  a  large  part  of  the 
Christian  world  continues  insisting  that  theology 
must  be  built.  Christianity  itself,  they  affirm, 
stands  or  falls  with  infallible  inspiration.  I  once 
knew  a  minister  of  high  genius  who  said  to  me, 
"  If  I  had  to  give  up  verbal  inspiration,  I  should 


THE   PROBLEM  27 

have  to  give  up  Christ."  One  who  had  ever 
heard  him  pray  knew  better,  for  he  had  a  spiritual 
foundation  deeper  and  better  than  his  theory ;  bat 
except  upon  the  most  rigid  theory  of  inspiration  he 
supposed  a  Christian  theology,  and  even  a  Chris- 
tian faith,  to  be  impossible.  That  belief  is  still 
abroad  in  power,  and  the  hurtful  reputation  of  it 
is  abroad  also.  If  we  propose  a  Christian  theology 
we  shall  be  expected  by  a  multitude  of  outsiders 
to  ground  it  in  infallible  inspiration,  on  which 
they  know  that  we  cannot  build  a  structure  that 
will  stand;  and  at  the  same  time  we  shall  be 
required  by  a  multitude  of  Christians  to  ground 
it  in  the  same,  where  we  know  that  we  cannot 
build  safely.  Not  only  so,  but  we  shall  be 
expected  to  prove  the  doctrine.  Thus  theology 
is  burdened  with  a  task  that  cannot  be  performed, 
and  the  ill  name  of  a  theory  that  cannot  be 
defended,  and  unbelievers  are  encouraged  in  their 
impression  that  a  valid  Christian  theology  is 
impossible. 

By  the  doctrine  of  a  finally  authoritative  book 
another  burden  has  been  placed  upon  theology, 
of  which  the  weight  has  not  yet  ceased  to  be  felt, 
although  it  is  beginning  to  pass  away.  That 
burden  is  the  task  of  so  interpreting  the  Bible 


28  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

that  it  shall  agree  with  itself.  Of  course  an 
authoritative  book  will  agree  with  itself.  Its 
statements,  probably  everywhere  and  certainly  in 
the  field  of  religion,  will  be  free  from  contradic- 
tions. If  they  seem  to  differ,  it  must  be  assumed 
to  be  no  more  than  seeming,  and  interpretation 
must  be  relied  upon  to  reconcile  the  differences. 
This  is  a  long-established  view  of  the  Bible.  How 
many  books  have  been  written  on  biblical  difficul- 
ties, to  vindicate  the  Bible  as  divine  by  showing 
that  it  nowhere  contradicts,  itself,  —  no,  not  even 
as  to  details  of  history  or  incidental  statements 
of  fact !  Especially  on  the  matters  that  enter 
into  theology  must  the  Bible  speak  in  unison.  Its 
voice  is  the  voice  of  God,  and  its  utterance  must 
be  one;  and  the  interpreter  must  find  the  unity 
which  certainly  must  be  there.  This  reasoning 
is  good.  Absolute  authority  must  be  accompanied 
by  unity  of  teaching.  But  what  a  work  to  lay 
upon  an  interpreter  or  a  theologian,  —  to  interpret 
so  large  and  various  a  book  as  the  Bible  into 
unanimity  !  It  is  a  very  large  undertaking.  Per- 
haps it  cannot  be  done  b}r  fair  means,  and  yet 
it  must  be  done.  Any  failure,  leaving  a  discrep- 
ancy unreconciled,  can  only  stand  as  a  difficulty 
unremoved  where  difficulties  may  be  fatal,  a  rock 


THE   PROBLEM  29 

on  which  a  whole  system  of  theology  may  go  to 
ruin.  And  as  to  the  process  itself:  is  it  not  a 
strange  and  anomalous  thing  that  a  theologian 
should  be  set  to  harmonize  his  authoritative 
material?  Does  it  seem  likely  that  a  divine 
standard  will  need  interpreting  into  unity  ?  And 
is  it  really  a  high  process,  consistent  with  true 
reverence  for  a  divine  standard,  to  be  interpreting 
it  with  the  preconceived  intention  of  bringing  its 
statements  into  agreement?  We  do  not  so  else- 
where. Honest  interpretation  of  other  writings 
takes  them  as  they  are,  and  lets  them  mean  what- 
ever they  may  say:  indeed,  honest  interpretation 
may  almost  be  said  to  consist  in  doing  this.  But 
theology  has  long  been  expected  to  interpret  its 
Scriptures  into  unanimity,  and  even  into  assertion 
of  a  scheme  of  thought  accepted  in  advance  as 
representative  of  their  teachings.  The  process  is 
not  a  high  one,  and  theology  stands  at  a  serious 
moral  disadvantage  because  of  this  legacy  from 
the  doctrine  of  an  authoritative  Bible.  Somehow 
we  must  clear  ourselves  from  this  complication, 
and  use  our  Scriptures  for  what  they  are  and 
what  they  mean,  free  from  the  morally  damaging - 
assumption  that  they  must  always  agree  with 
themselves. 


30  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

All  the  more  because  of  one  outcome  that  is  not 
always  recognized  by  those  who  most  need  to  be 
aware  of  it.  There  is  a  strange  magic  about  the 
work  of  interpreting  a  book  with  which  one  feels 
bound  always  to  agree.  The  process  is  not  favor- 
able to  the  ascertainment  of  truth.  If  a  man  is  in 
duty  bound  to  agree  with  a  book,  the  surest  and 
shortest  way  is  to  make  the  book  agree  with  the 
man.  This  is  not  difficult.  The  book  is  inactive, 
but  the  man  is  alive.  It  may  be  hard  to  bind  the 
convictions  of  a  living  man  into  harmony  with  the 
teachings  of  a  silent  page,  but  it  is  easy  to  inter- 
pret the  silent  and  helpless  page  into  harmony 
with  the  convictions  of  a  living  man.  The  tempta- 
tion to  this  is  natural,  subtle,  and  almost  irresist- 
ible. A  man  of  strong  views  does  it  before  he  is 
aware  of  the  desire  to  do  it :  the  deeper  his  convic- 
tions, the  more  urgent  is  the  temptation.  The  ex- 
perienced interpreter  who  has  never  noticed  this 
strong  temptation  has  probably  failed  to  analyze  his 
own  mental  processes.  In  fact  there  are  great 
difficulties  about  learning  what  an  author  means, 
as  long  as  one  feels  obligation  to  agree  with  him 
at  every  point.  Only  free  interpretation  inter- 
prets. But  for  centuries  theology  has  been  hand- 
ling the   Scriptures  under  all  the   disadvantages 


THE   PROBLEM  31 

that  attend  interpreting  with  duty  to  agree.  It  is 
hard  to  believe  that  God  requires  or  desires  this 
at  our  hands.  He  would  certainly  give  theology 
the  benefit  of  all  that  would  render  natural  and 
sure  the  right  understanding  of  its  chief  source ; 
and  plainly  we  must  seek  honorable  exemption 
from  the  strong  temptation  to  make  the  Scriptures 
agree  with  us. 

From  the  use  of  the  Bible  as  authority  theology 
has  received  another  injurious  legacy,  —  the  proof- 
text  method. 

The  proof-text  method  came  naturally.  If  all  is 
solidly  divine,  of  course  a  citation  is  a  proof.  So  in 
the  books  of  theologians  and  the  footnotes  of  creeds 
it  is  common  to  find  the  statement  of  a  doctrine 
followed  by  a  list  of  Scripture  references,  offered 
as  sufficient  evidence  that  the  statement  is  true. 
Sometimes  the  selection  has  been  made  with  skill 
and  understanding,  and  sometimes  not.  Not  so 
very  long  ago  the  traditional  practice  followed  the 
logical  inference  from  equal  inspiration,  and  took 
the  whole  Bible  for  choice  of  proof-texts,  with  the 
result  of  some  strange  groupings  and  some  strange 
proofs.  The  method  is  retiring  from  use,  but  has 
not  yet  wholly  withdrawn  its  effects.  We  know 
that  it  does  not  rest  on  facts,  and  therefore  cannot 


32  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

yield  good  results.  The  various  books  of  the  Bible 
are  not  of  such  nature  as  fairly  to  yield  themselves 
to  such  use.  We  cannot  reach  right  results  by 
citing  proof  from  Ezekiel  or  Ecclesiastes  or  the 
books  of  Samuel  beside  words  of  Paul  or  the  Lord 
himself.  Only  by  claiming  equal  authority  for  all 
these  sources  could  we  defend  such  a  practice,  and 
such  a  claim  we  cannot  maintain.  Texts  are  not 
all  authoritative,  nor  indeed,  as  I  hope  to  show,  is 
the  divine  message  given  us  chiefly  in  the  form  of 
texts.  But  we  open  a  Bible  that  has  long  been 
offering  its  every  page  alive  with  texts  to  prove  our 
statements:  and  what,  we  ask  ourselves,  is  that 
better  method  which  is  to  take  the  [dace  of  this  ? 

From  long  use  of  this  kind  it  has  come  to  pass 
that  the  Bible  is  by  no  means  an  easy  book  to 
quote  with  certainty  of  its  right  meaning.  When 
we  open  it  there  spring  out  great  numbers  of 
suggested  meanings  about  which  we  shall  act 
rashly  if  we  take  them  as  correct.  Under  the 
influence  of  the  idea  of  direct  authority  the  Scrip- 
tures have  been  used  in  the  interest  of  edification, 
until  various  non-natural  modes  of  interpreting 
them  have  become  established  and  traditional, 
and  sacred  too.  Texts  have  come  to  have  an 
atmosphere  about  them.     They  carry  a  sense  of 


THE   PROBLEM  33 

quality,  which  may  correspond  to  their  proper 
meaning  and  may  not.  When  we  use  them  it  is 
not  quite  certain  what  we  are  using. 

For  ages,  we  know,  the  leading  use  of  the 
Scriptures  has  been  to  draw  profitable  lessons  from 
them.  The  purpose  is  right,  I  need  not  say,  but 
more  must  be  said  of  the  process.  Reverence  has 
led  to  the  assumption,  expressed  or  implied,  that 
the  Bible  must  contain  every  tiling  that  the  soul 
can  need  for  its  spiritual  sustenance.  As  old  as 
the  days  of  Alexandrian  Judaism  is  the  idea  that 
the  true  wisdom  of  all  wise  men  must  be  contained 
in  the  book  of  God,  and  be  discoverable  there. 
Accordingly  all  has  been  sought  there ;  the  largest 
meaning  must  be  the  real  meaning.  We  may 
almost  say  that  the  Scriptures  have  had  more  read 
into  them  than  read  out  of  them.  Into  the  older 
Scriptures  the  meaning  of  the  later  has  been  read, 
the  gospel  into  the  Old  Testament,  as  a  matter  of 
course  and  a  Christian  duty.  On  every  page  of 
the  Bible  the  name  of  God  has  been  read  with  its 
full  Christian  significance  in  mind.  Into  all  the 
Scriptures  theological  systems  have  been  read 
without  hesitation.  Texts  once  brought  into  asso- 
ciation with  doctrine  have  been  assumed  to  have 

been  written  for  proof  of  doctrine.     Allegorizing 

8 


34  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

is  gone  now  from  intelligent  circles,  but  ages  of 
it  have  left  a  coloring  upon  the  biblical  narrative 
and  a  remnant  of  habit  in  the  general  Christian 
mind.  Typical  meanings,  often  groundless,  have 
turned  attention  away  from  good  historical  sense. 
Ilomiletical  use  might  be  counted  upon  to  help 
in  the  understanding  of  the  sacred  words,  but  in 
many  ways  preaching,  with  all  its  value,  has  been 
a  foe  to  the  Scriptures.  It  has  crammed  them 
with  lessons,  putting  lessons  in  where  none  ought 
to  be  found,  and  ready  always  to  err  in  favor 
of  finding  the  larger  lesson.  It  has  suggested 
that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  understood  only 
through  a  kind  of  professional  practice.  It  has 
familiarized  all  sorts  of  doubtful  exegesis,  and 
given  wide  currency  to  edifying  misinterpretations. 
It  has  made  mistranslations  to  be  cherished  as 
too  precious  for  correction,  if  only  they  yielded 
edifying  texts  and  enshrined  some  profitable  truth. 
The  simple,  straightforward,  historical  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  lias  been  kept  out  of  its 
rightful  place  by  reverence  for  edifying,  holy 
words,  maintained  under  the  influence  of  preach- 
ing. Moreover,  attention  in  the  reading  of  the 
Bible  has  come  to  be  confined  to  certain  aspects  of 
the  book   and  turned  away  from  others.     It  has 


THE   PROBLEM  35 

been  reverent  attention  to  the  Bible  as  a  book 
of  lessons,  with  astonishing  inattention  to  facts 
that  would  alter  the  lessons  if  they  were  noticed. 
Texts  have  thus  obtained  a  familiar  and  conse- 
crated meaning,  to  be  uttered  only  with  solemnity, 
but  it  may  not  be  the  true  meaning  at  all.  Con- 
sequently if  we  attempt  in  theology  to  use  the 
sacred  words  by  way  of  proof,  they  come  to  us 
full  of  suggestiveness  for  spiritual  purposes,  but 
of  a  suggestiveness  which  we  cannot  safely  trust. 
The  meaning  that  they  bring  to  mind  is  partly  in 
the  words  themselves,  and  partly  an  accumulation 
from  reverent  but  uninquiring  use.  They  may  be 
very  far  from  proving  what  they  seem  to  prove, 
and  our  theology  may  surfer  loss  of  truth  if  we 
take  them  as  they  appear.  Even  if  a  proof-text 
method  were  a  good  method  in  itself,  it  could  not 
be  successfully  employed  now,  since  the  texts  of 
the  Bible  have  suffered  such  serious  though  unin- 
tended distortion.  One  thing  is  certain.  Theology 
must  seize  upon  the  help  of  criticism  and  history 
and  exegesis  and  all  else  that  can  show  what  the 
Bible  really  means.  But  no  one  of  these  has  a 
word  to  say  in  favor  of  continuing  in  the  old,  easy, 
superficial  proof-text  method  which  has  come  from 
taking   the   Scriptures    as   authoritative   through- 


36  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

out.      Theology   has   a   deeper  and  harder  work 
to  do. 

Out  of  all  this  has  come  another  condition  most 
hurtful  both  to  theology  and  to  the  efficiency  of 
religion.  With  such  a  view  of  inspiration  and 
authority  as  has  prevailed,  it  was  quite  inevitable 
that  questions  about  the  Bible  should  obtain  a  dis- 
proportionate degree  of  prominence.  Points  of  no 
intrinsic  importance  for  the  moral  and  spiritual  life 
have  been  elevated  to  the  highest  rank  and  insisted 
upon  as  vital  and  decisive.  Hosts  of  good  men 
confound  criticism  with  Christianity.  To  this  very 
hour  multitudes  of  Christians  hold  it  essential  to 
sound  Christianity  to  believe  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  that  there  was  only  one  Isaiah,  and  that 
the  story  of  Jonah  is  historical  Questions  about 
the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  even  of 
the  Pastoral  Kpistles,  are  still  regarded  as  lying 
within  the  region  of  sceptical  doubt.  The  pulpit 
is  not  free  to  the  using  of  the  Bible  in  its  ascer- 
tained character,  and  thus  ambiguities  remain  and 
false  impressions  are  perpetuated.  So  conscience 
is  embarrassed  by  the  application  of  false  tests,  and 
spiritual  life,  as  well  as  intellectual  activity,  is 
guided  in  artificial  channels  and  restrained  from  its 
proper  freedom.     And  all  this  is  going  on  at  a  time 


THE   PROBLEM  37 

when  the  living  questions  are  such  questions  as 
whether  Christianity  is  able  to  elevate  the  ideals  of 
common  life,  to  check  the  overweening  power  of 
money,  to  limit  self-indulgence,  to  bring  in  a  high 
standard  of  honesty,  to  protect  the  family  from 
disintegrating  influences,  to  diminish  drunkenness 
and  the  social  evil,  to  rescue  the  lost  part  of  the 
community,  to  commend  religion  to  all  souls,  to 
condemn  and  banish  war,  to  create  confidence  in 
righteousness  as  a  living  power,  to  establish  broth- 
erly kindness  as  the  law  of  life,  and  whether  Chris- 
tians have  any  power  to  come  together  in  effective 
unity  for  these  large  Christian  purposes.  This  is 
the  world  in  which  we  live.  These  vast  questions 
are  settling  themselves,  partly  through  default  of 
attention  on  the  part  of  Christians,  while  the 
Christians  are  dividing  among  themselves  and  dis- 
trusting one  another  over  the  manner  in  which 
they  ought  to  understand  and  use  the  Bible.  Both 
for  theology  and  for  religion  it  is  necessary  that 
we  get  into  a  position  in  which  the  large  things 
shall  be  at  the  front  and  the  minor  matters  in  the 
rear.  We  must  find  a  method  of  using  the  Bible 
that  will  put  a  stop  to  the  magnifying  of  questions 
about  the  Bible  itself  above  judgment,  mercy,  and 
the  weightier  matters  of  the  gospel. 


38  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

One  serious  element  in  our  problem  remains  to 
be  considered.  When  we  sit  down  together  as  I 
have  proposed,  to  put  into  form  the  truest  theol- 
ogy that  we  can  find,  really  the  first  question  is 
that  of  our  own  function.  What  are  we  to  do? 
How  is  the  theologian  related  to  his  materials? 
Are  we  to  be  contributors  to  the  result,  or  not? 
Are  we  called  to  think  theology  out  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Scriptures,  or  to  receive  it  from 
them  in  solid  form  ?  Is  the  Bible  our  inspirer,  or 
our  dictator  with  power  of  veto  ?  Are  we  merely 
expounders  of  a  final  authority,  which  says,  "  Thus 
far  shalt  thou  go,  but  no  farther,"  so  that  we  must 
accept  all  biblical  testimony  as  to  religious  truth, 
and  never  dissent  therefrom  or  add  thereto?  or 
have  we  some  more  independent  function,  some 
call  to  bring  to  the  result  something  of  our  own? 

The  logic  of  the  matter  is  plain.  If  the  book  as 
a  book  is  absolutely  authoritative,  a  theology  that 
truly  reproduces  the  book  is  final,  and  in  the  con- 
struction of  it  there  is  no  room  for  anything  from 
other  sources.  If  the  Bible  stands  as  the  sole  and 
sufficient  rule  of  faith,  in  the  sense  that  as  a  unit 
it  brings  God's  direct  instruction,  then  it  may  be 
expected  to  yield  a  clear  theology,  and  a  theolo- 
gian  may  neither  dissent  from  that  theology  nor 


THE   PROBLEM  39 

add  to  it  anything  of  his  own.  All  through  the 
history  of  Christian  theology  there  has  been  an  un- 
derlying claim  to  this  effect,  and  often  a  claim  dis- 
tinctly formulated.  The  Bible  is  unquestionably 
the  main  source  of  Christian  theology,  and  many 
hold,  or  think  they  hold,  that  it  is  the  only  source. 
Students  have  often  come  to  me  with  this  idea, 
supposing  that  the  theologian's  calling  was  simply 
to  gather  out,  classify,  and  express  what  the  Scrip- 
tures contain  on  his  subject.  In  this  it  is  assumed 
that  the  Scriptures  yield  a  system,  and  the  system 
carries  with  it  their  authority,  which  is  the  author- 
ity of  God.  Doctrine  is  inspired,  theology  is  re- 
vealed from  heaven.  I  remember  a  book  entitled 
"  Revealed  Theology."  The  theologian  is  only  an 
interpreter,  a  voice,  adding  nothing  to  the  utter- 
ance. 

Perhaps  the  idea  that  the  Scriptures  yield  a 
theology  which  binds  the  theologian  should  re- 
ceive a  word  of  exposition.  It  has  commonly 
been  assumed  that  the  Bible  contains  the  whole 
of  Christianity,  and  has  upon  its  pages  all  the 
views  or  interpretations  of  Christianity  that  have 
a  right  to  exist.  This  is  no  accident ;  it  has  been 
arranged  by  the  inspiring  wisdom  of  God.  It  is 
true  that  there  are  different  points  of  view  within 


40  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

the  Bible :  in  addition  to  what  the  Synoptics  con- 
tain there  is  a  Pauline  gospel,  and  a  Johannine, 
and  there  are  other  conceptions  besides.  But 
these  are  authorized  views  of  the  gospel :  moreover 
they  are  harmonious  and  complementary  views, 
which  can  be  combined  into  a  consistent  whole; 
and  this  biblical  whole  is  identical  with  the  whole 
of  Christianity.  In  effect,  Christianity  is  to  be 
brought  forth  from  the  Bible  as  gold  is  dug  out 
of  a  mine.  It  is  all  there,  and  the  various  forms 
in  which  we  find  it  there  have  been  so  constructed 
and  brought  together  by  the  God  who  made  the 
Bible  as  to  include  all  that  Christianity  can  ever 
include.  If  with  our  generation  we  have  occasion 
to  inquire  what  Christianity  is,  we  shall  meet  with 
this  reply,  that  Christianity  is  the  sum-total  of  the 
biblical  teaching,  which  alone  is  authorized  teach- 
ing, to  be  discovered  by  combining  into  a  solid 
unity  the  conceptions  of  Christ  and  his  revelation 
that  were  placed  within  the  Bible  in  order  that 
they  might  complement  one  another  into  a  con- 
sistent whole.  Thus  by  discovery  and  recon- 
struction of  a  foreordained  theological  unity  in 
the  inspired  word  there  is  found  a  theology  that 
comes  to  the  finder  with  the  authority  of  God. 
The  positive  aspect  of  such  a  doctrine  is  that 


THE   PROBLEM  41 

the  Scriptures,  as  Scriptures,  require  theological 
assent:  the  negative,  that  they  hold  a  rightful 
power  of  veto.  "Hitherto  but  no  farther"  is 
their  genuine  word.  We  are  all  familiar  with  the 
deep  distinction  that  has  been  drawn  in  theology 
between  results  of  biblical  interpretation  and  re- 
sults of  human  speculation :  what  comes  from  the 
Scriptures  by  interpretation  is  divine  and  sure ; 
what  comes  by  speculation,  or  human  thinking,  is 
on  an  immeasurably  lower  level,  —  it  is  purely 
human,  uncertain,  probably  unwarranted,  possibly 
sinful.  To  differ  from  the  Scriptures  is  for- 
bidden, to  add  to  their  testimony  is  profane,  to  seek 
sound  theology  by  speculating  beyond  them  is  to 
attempt  the  impossible,  and  unworthy  of  a  rever- 
ent child  of  God.  A  theologian  is  simply  in  a 
broad  sense  an  exegete,  who  sins  if  he  tries  to  be 
more,  for  no  human  mind  is  competent  to  add  to 
the  substance  of  theology,  beyond  that  which  the 
Bible  directly  gives.  In  this  I  am  quoting  a 
long-established  view  of  the  theologian's  office. 
I  have  known  theologians  most  conscientious  and 
true  who  held  this  conception  of  their  calling, 
which  from  their  point  of  view  was  certainly  the 
logic  of  the  situation. 

But  logic   and   life    are    not   the    same.      The 


42  THE  SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

theory  that  the  Bible  is  dictator  with  veto 
power  breaks  down  completely  in  practice,  how- 
ever devoutly  it  may  be  accepted.  It  has  never 
been  consistently  acted  upon,  and  yet  it  has  not 
been  frankly  abandoned.  It  calls  for  a  theology 
constructed  solely  from  the  biblical  material,  with 
no  human  speculation  added.  But  that  is  impos- 
sible.    On  neither  side  is  the  theory  workable. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  Scriptures  do  not  yield 
a  single  clear  theology  to  which  full  divine 
authority  attaches.  As  to  the  idea  of  the  Bible 
just  mentioned,  that  it  contains  the  only  author- 
ized conceptions  of  Christianity,  and  holds  these 
so  prearranged  by  inspiration  as  to  complement 
one  another  and  contain  Christianity  entire,  it  is 
one  of  the  a  priori  theories,  made  in  advance  of 
examination.  Examination  would  never  suggest 
it,  and  is  sufficient  to  disprove  it.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  such  prearranged  completeness 
exists,  or  was  ever  intended  by  the  divine  will. 
No  one  has  ever  told  us  by  authority  that  the 
interpretations  of  Christianity  contained  within 
the  Bible  are  the  only  permissible  interpretations. 
It  simply  cannot  be  shown  that  by  God's  will  we 
are  limited  to  these,  or  that  these  theologies,  so 
to  call  them,  combine  into  a  single,  complete,  and 


THE  PROBLEM  43 

harmonious  system  that  can  be  identified  with 
Christianity.  When  we  take  the  Bible  for  what 
it  is,  and  let  it  bear  its  own  testimony,  it  does 
not  give  forth  that  dictating  theological  product 
for  which  the  theory  calls. 

And  on  the  other  hand  it  is  not  possible  for 
a  theologian  to  avoid  thinking,  or  to  refrain  from 
working  his  thoughts  into  his  system.  A  living 
man  cannot  be  prevented  from  making  his  con- 
tribution. Nor  indeed,  when  one  thinks  of  it, 
can  a  reverent  spirit  readily  believe  that  God  has 
ever  intended  to  put  a  veto  upon  fresh  and  inde- 
pendent thought  on  the  themes  that  enter  into 
theology.  To  the  sea  he  may  have  said,  "Thus 
far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  farther,"  but  not  to 
the  soul  that  is  seeking  to  know  the  truth.  If 
God  has  here  in  the  Bible  given  truth  that  no 
more  truth  may  be  given,  and  granted  light  that 
no  more  light  may  be  granted,  this  is  the  only 
place  where  he  has  acted  so.  Usually  truth  is 
given  for  seed,  with  the  intent  that  harvests 
beyond  measure  shall  spring  from  it.  The  ful- 
ness of  the  Christian  light  is  given  in  Christ,  we 
may  be  sure,  in  order  that  the  loyal-hearted  may 
see  for  themselves  thereby,  as  far  as  thought  can 
reach.     Practically,  there  are  obstacles   of  every 


44  THE  SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

kind  in  the  way  of  acting  as  if  the  Scriptures 
claimed  to  dictate  the  whole  of  theology  and 
veto  the  contribution  of  the  theologian. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  the  theory  has  so  com- 
pletely broken  down  in  practice.  It  is  true  that 
many  a  man  has  supposed  himself  to  be  framing 
a  theology  coextensive  with  the  divine  testimony 
in  the  Bible.  Many  a  man  has  labored  to  that 
end  with  a  pathetic  conscientiousness,  and  some- 
times one  has  reverently  thought  that  he  had 
succeeded.  But  in  vain.  A  man  with  systematiz- 
ing genius  enough  to  undertake  such  an  enterprise 
has  too  much  to  succeed  with  it.  Speculation 
is  absolutely  unpreventable.  Though  one  bow 
to  the  Scriptures  with  perfect  loyalty,  the  specu- 
lative element  comes  in  as  soon  as  he  begins  to 
tli ink  out  their  meaning  and  set  their  testimony 
in  order.  No  speculation,  no  system,  even  though 
the  subject-matter  be  accepted  on  authority.  No 
man  ever  exactly  reproduced  the  Bible  in  theology, 
or  stopped  making  theology  when  he  had  readied 
the  end  of  his  biblical  material.  No  man  indeed 
ever  thought  over  again  the  precise  thoughts  of 
Paul,  or  of  any  other  biblical  writer :  far  less  has 
anyone  ever  gathered  up  the  thought  of  them 
all.     But  there  is  no  need  of  trying  to  prove  the 


THE  PROBLEM  45 

point,  for  all  such  endeavor  is  rendered  superfluous 
by  the  mention  of  the  great  theologians.  These, 
what  have  they  done?  Augustine,  Aquinas,  Cal- 
vin, Arminius,  Edwards,  Taylor,  Hodge,  —  were 
these  mere  biblicists  ?  Were  they  even  chiefly 
biblicists  ?  They  were  all  great  thinkers,  rea- 
soners,  philosophizers,  systematic  organizers  of 
thought.  They  wrought  under  the  influence  of 
the  Scriptures,  but  under  that  influence  each 
of  them  thought  theology  out,  and  formed  his 
system  under  the  impulse  of  his  own  genius. 
Some  of  them  held  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures 
to  be  absolutely  binding,  and  distrusted  specula- 
tion ;  but  no  one  of  them  refrained  from  reason- 
ing upon  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  or  from 
working  into  his  theology  the  best  and  utmost 
that  his  rational  powers  could  do.  The  idea  that 
the  Scriptures  authoritatively  dictate  the  whole 
contents  of  theology  has  never  been  vindicated 
by  experience,  and  their  assumed  veto  upon  specu- 
lation and  human  contribution  to  the  body  of 
doctrine  has  never  been  regarded  in  practice,  even 
by  those  who  devoutly  believed  in  it.  For  this 
inconsistency  no  one  is  to  blame,  since  the  neces- 
sity for  it  resides  in  the  nature  of  the  human 
soul. 


46  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

Nevertheless,  the  theory  of  dictation  and  veto 
continues  influential,  and  the  resulting  perplexi- 
ties for  the  conscientious  theologian  constitute  a 
part  of  his  problem.  The  doctrine  has  waned  in 
some  theological  circles  far  more  than  in  others. 
Moreover,  it  has  waned  far  more  in  practice  than 
in  theory.  High  claims  for  the  Scriptures  as 
supreme  authority  still  remain,  where  the  acting 
upon  them  has  greatly  diminished,  —  a  fact  that 
puts  theology  more  or  less  in  a  false  position,  and 
invites  distrust.  The  whole  situation  to-day  urges 
upon  us  with  much  force,  when  we  begin  to  the- 
ologize, the  question  how  we  are  related  to  the 
Bible.  As  we  sit  down  together  for  our  work, 
are  we  bound  to  accept  all  biblical  statements  on 
the  themes  of  theology  and  work  them  into  our 
system?  Must  we  consider  ourselves  limited  to 
what  the  Bible  provides  us?  Are  we  at  liberty 
to  dissent  from  biblical  statements?  Are  we  in 
any  true  sense  judges  of  the  value  of  biblical 
statements?  If  we  have  any  liberty  in  the  mat- 
ter, on  what  ground  shall  we  claim  it?  If  we 
are  not  in  the  old  position,  then  in  what  position 
are  we  ? 

It  is  high  time  to  give  an  intelligent  answer 
to   these  questions,  and  to   do  it  openly  and   di- 


THE  PROBLEM  47 

rectly.  Honesty  requires  us  to  abandon  some 
of  the  old  ways  of  using  the  Bible.  Abandon- 
ment is  easy  enough,  comparatively,  but  it  is 
not  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  honesty  that  requires 
it.  Mere  cessation  from  old  ways  leaves  the 
right  method  of  use  still  undetermined,  and  it 
leaves  large  parts  of  our  material  waiting  for  us 
to  decide  what  use  of  them  we  ought  to  make. 
We  need  a  principle  for  use  of  the  Scriptures  in 
theology,  as  clear  and  definite  as  the  old,  and 
more  tenable.  For  a  while  we  may  manage  to 
make  shift  without  it,  but  not  for  long,  for  un- 
certainty as  to  the  principle  is  not  favorable  to 
that  straightforwardness  which  honesty  demands. 
In  a  time  of  change,  the  great  danger  to  sacred 
interests  is  the  danger  of  insincerity.  The  pre- 
ciousness  of  sacred  things  may  easily  induce  us 
to  hold  fast  what  intelligence  requires  us  to 
surrender  or  to  change.  Then  we  shall  soon  be 
found  holding  positions  that  we  first  suspect  and 
then  know  to  be  untenable,  and  defending  them  by 
arguments  that  we  do  not  inwardly  trust  as  suffi- 
cient or  as  valid,  —  and  all  this  lest  holy  interests 
should  suffer  from  our  doing  otherwise.  Since 
this  cannot  be  done  in  a  corner,  we  shall  find 
ourselves  and  our  methods   distrusted   by  honest 


48  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

men,  and  the  sacred  interests  that  we  sought  to 
safeguard  exposed  to  new  dangers  by  our  fault. 
This  sore  temptation  of  a  time  of  change  is  upon 
theology  to-day,  in  its  relation  to  the  Scriptures. 
The  time  has  come  for  frank  discussion  of  the 
problem,  for  open  acknowledgment  that  the  old 
position  is  untenable,  and  for  unreserved  inquiry 
for  a  better  method.  It  is  because  the  time  for 
such  work  has  come,  that  I  have  laid  the  problem 
before   }'ou   in   the   present  hour. 

I  venture  to  think  that  there  is  a  principle, 
clear,  sound,  and  applicable  to  the  whole  subject, 
by  which  we  can  come  to  the  right  use  of  the 
Scriptures  in  theology.  To  the  presentation  of 
this  principle  the  next  hour  will   be  given. 


n 

THE    PRINCIPLE 

I  have  spoken  of  the  complicated  situation  in 
which  we  find  ourselves  when  we  sit  down  to- 
gether to  use  the  Scriptures  in  forming  our  the- 
ology, a  situation  which  is  our  problem.  The 
Scriptures  are  handed  to  us  new  by  modern 
scholarship :  they  are  read  in  the  light  of  linguis- 
tic studies,  history,  archaeology,  criticism,  analy- 
sis, reconstruction,  and  without  reference  to  the 
ancient  idea  of  inspiration.  At  the  same  time 
they  are  still  delivered  to  us  also  by  the  past,  with 
the  atmosphere  of  long  reverential  use  about  them. 
We  are  asked,  and  more  than  asked,  to  use  them 
as  equal  and  authoritative  throughout.  From  the 
past  they  come  to  us  bearing  a  burden  of  harm  to 
theology  through  long  misuse ;  with  their  inferior 
parts  raised  to  the  rank  of  the  highest,  with  the 
long  habit  of  falling  apart  into  texts  instead  of 
standing  as  masses,  with  plain  historical  signifi- 
cance lost  in  other  meanings,  with  various  misin- 
terpretations wrought  into  their  substance,  and  with 

4 


50  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

a  right  of  dictation  and  veto  attributed  to  them 
which  has  never  proved  effective  in  practice, 
and  which  we  cannot  show  that  the}7"  rightfully 
possess.  Meanwhile  we  find  that  the  ground  for 
the  ancient  manner  of  use,  in  the  doctrine  of  an 
equal  and  infallible  inspiration,  is  gone.  We  know 
that  it  is  our  duty  and  our  high  privilege  to  use 
these  writings  in  the  forming  of  our  theology,  but 
how  ?  I  have  ventured  to  say  that  there  exists 
a  principle,  clear  and  sound,  that  leads  to  the  solu- 
tion of  the  problem. 

The  principle  is,  that  the  Christian  element  in 
the  Scriptures  is  the  indispensable  and  formative 
element  in  Christian  theology,  and  is  the  only 
element  in  the  Scriptures  which  Christian  theology 
is  either  required  or  permitted  to  receive  as  con- 
tributing to  its  substance. 

I  venture  to  think  that  this  statement  has  a  self- 
evident  sound, —  to  Christian  theology  the  Scrip- 
tures contribute  their  Christian  element  and 
nothing  else.  It  seems  to  need  little  proof:  it 
proves  itself  to  the  listening  ear.  I  am  sure  that 
it  is  all  implied  in  the  two  definitions  with  which 
we  began,  the  definitions  of  theology  and  the  Scrip- 
tures. Let  me  recall  them.  Theology  is  the 
orderly  presentation  of  what  we   have  reason\to 


THE  PRINCIPLE  51 

hold  as  true  concerning  God  and  the  relations  of 
men  to  him ;  and  the  Scriptures  are  those  writings 
which  preserve  the  story  of  Hebrew  and  early 
Christian  religion,  with  Jesus  Christ  and  his  reve- 
lation concerning  God  and  man  for  their  crowning 
element.  For  us  Christians  theology  and  the 
Scriptures,  thus  conceived,  are  manifestly  insep- 
arable, and  the  point  at  which  they  meet  is  plain. 
They  meet  in  Christ.  He  is  the  common  posses- 
sion of  the  two  —  he  and  what  he  contributes  — 
and  he  is  their  common  glory.  He  is  the  crown  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New,  and  the  crown 
of  the  Bible  as  a  whole ;  and  in  the  field  of  the- 
ology there  is  none  that  compares  with  him  in 
clearness  of  revelation  or  in  fulness  of  light  and 
truth.  If  he  has  made  theology  to  be  Christian,  it 
is  equally  true  that  he  has  made  the  Scriptures  to 
be  Christian.  To  either  there  is  none  like  him. 
Now  concerning  Jesus  Christ  the  primary  fact 
is  that  his  revelation  is  true.  That  is  to  say,  he 
has  shown  God  as  he  is,  in  his  character  and  rela- 
tions with  men.  He  has  represented  life  in  its 
true  meaning,  and  opened  to  us  the  real  way  to 
genuine  welfare  and  success  in  existence.  What 
he  has  made  known  commends  and  proves  itself  as 
true  by  the  manner  in  which  it  fits  into  the  human 


52  THE   SCRIPTURES   IX   THEOLOGY 

scheme,  meets  human  need,  and  renders  thought 
rational  and  life  successful.  God  eternally  is  such 
a  being  as  Jesus  represents  him  to  be,  —  this  is  the 
heart  of  Christianity,  to  be  apprehended  not  first 
in  thought  but  first  in  life  and  love ;  and  this  is 
forever  true.  And  it  is  a  revelation  never  to  be 
superseded,  but  forever  to  be  better  and  better 
known.  So  Jesus  Christ  brings  into  the  Bible, 
and  into  theology,  as  he  first  brought  into  life,  a 
body  of  everlasting  truth.  This  the  Scriptures 
and  theology  receive  in  common  from  him. 

But  notice  in  what  different  positions  Christ 
and  his  contribution  stand  in  relation  to  the 
two.  To  him  the  Scriptures  tend,  and  from  him 
theology  proceeds.  In  the  Bible  a  long  course 
of  life,  revelation,  and  experience  culminates  in 
Christ:  in  theology  a  long  course  of  experience, 
reflection,  and  development  comes  forth  from 
Christ.  Practically  Christ  stands  at  the  end  of 
our  Bible  and  at  the  beginning  of  our  theology. 
When  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  faith  enters  to 
the  Bible  there  is  very  much  there  that  lies  behind 
him.  When  he  enters  to  theology  the  whole  scope 
and  movement  of  the  work  lies  before  him. 

That  is  to  say,  the  Scriptures  contain  that  indis- 
pensable  material  without  which  theology  would 


THE   PRINCIPLE  53 

not  be  Christian  or  rise  to  the  height  of  truth,  and 
they  contain  a  great  deal  more.  Speaking  in  terms 
of  time  we  can  say  that  they  contain  a  Christian 
and  a  pre-Christian  part;  speaking  in  terms  of 
quality,  that  they  contain  a  Christian  and  a  non- 
Christian  element.  Of  what  character  the  non- 
Christian  part  is,  or  the  pre-Christian,  we  do  not 
tell  by  giving  it  the  name;  that  remains  to  be  dis- 
covered. What  is  pre-Christian,  or  non-Christian, 
may  lie  close  upon  the  spiritual  borders  of  Chris- 
tianity, or  may  be  far  removed  from  the  Christian 
view  of  things :  Christ  may  have  superseded  it  by 
completion,  or  by  contradiction.  These  are  not 
matters  for  assumption,  but  for  inquiry.  The 
point  to  be  held  fast  and  for  certain  is  that  the 
Bible  does  bring  us  the  contribution  of  Christ 
together  with  much  that  did  not  proceed  from  him ; 
and  this  besides,  that  the  difference  between  these 
two  elements  is  not  necessarily  a  difference  in  time, 
though  it  is  partly  that,  but  is  a  difference  in 
quality.  The  great  word  Christian  is  not  merely  a 
term  that  belongs  on  one  side  of  a  time-boundary : 
it  is  a  descriptive  and  qualitative  term,  with  a  mean- 
ing in  itself.  There  certainly  is  non-Christian 
matter  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  for  aught  that  we 
know  there  may  be  in  the  New.     In  either  place 


54  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN  THEOLOGY 

the  question  is  one  of  spiritual  quality,  character, 
kinship  with  the  revelation  that  we  have  in  Christ. 

Now  return  a  moment  to  the  principle.  It  is 
the  Christian  element  in  the  Scriptures  that  must 
be  received  as  constituent  matter  into  our  the- 
ology, for  it  is  indispensable  and  formative  there. 
But  non-Christian  matter  contained  in  the  Bible 
need  not,  and  must  not,  be  so  received.  Christian 
theology  has  deep  interest  in  such  matter,  and  may 
employ  it  helpfully  for  historical  illustration,  a  use 
for  which  it  has  inestimable  value.  But  nothing 
that  is  not  Christian  in  its  genuine  quality  has  any 
place  in  our  Christian  theology,  even  though  we 
may  have  read  it  on  the  pages  of  the  Bible. 

This  principle  for  the  use  of  the  Scriptures 
contains  nothing  new,  neither  is  it  a  principle  that 
can  be  contradicted  or  set  aside.  That  the  Bible 
contains  the  revelation  of  Christ  and  more  has 
been  known  ever  since  the  Bible  was  completed. 
The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  affirms  it,  and  Paul 
insists  upon  it.  No  Christian  student  would  think 
of  denying  it.  Yet  as  a  measuring  and  testing 
fact  the  presence  of  diverse  elements  in  the  Bible 
has  never  yet  come  to  its  due  place  in  theology, 
and  still  less  in  the  popular  thinking.  It  has  not 
been  unused,  indeed,  as  a  test  of  beliefs,  but  it  has 


THE   PRINCIPLE  55 

never  yet  been  allowed  to  do  its  work  without 
restraint.  The  doctrine  of  an  equal  Bible,  as  I 
have  said,  has  kept  it  in  bondage.  So  it  remains 
for  our  time,  and  for  us  as  theologians,  to  separate 
the  Bible  into  its  diverse  elements,  in  order  that 
the  Christian  element  in  its  full  glory  may  be 
received  alone  to  influence  in  theology.  This  is 
that  rule  of  simplicity  and  certainty  which  the- 
ology has  been  seeking  but  has  never  fully  found ; 
and  both  the  schools  and  the  people  need  to  take 
it  honestly  into  use  and  allow  it  to  do  its  clarifying 
work. 

But  the  principle  calls  for  some  defining,  and 
for  the  answering  of  some  questions  which  it 
suggests.  Just  what  is  the  Christian  element? 
Where  in  the  Bible  is  it  to  be  found?  How  much 
does  it  include?  How  is  it  to  be  distinguished 
and  identified?  Who  is  to  select  it?  Are  there 
clear  marks  upon  it  ?  How  shall  we  know  when 
we  have  gathered  it  all?  Perhaps  we  may  not 
find  a  short  and  easy  definition,  but  these  questions 
can  be  answered. 

It  might  be  thought  that  the  Christian  element 
in  the  Scriptures  consisted  of  the  words  of  Jesus, 
or  was  coextensive  with  the  record  of  his  life.  Or 
it  might  be  identified  with  the  New  Testament, 


56  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

the  part  of  the  Bible  that  was  written  by  Chris- 
tians. Bnt  the  test  already  proposed,  of  character 
and  quality,  is  more  internal  and  searching  than 
any  such  test  of  localization  or  measurement. 
What  is  Christian  is  such  by  reason  of  its  relation 
to  that  which  Christ  signifies  or  stands  for,  but 
the  relation  lies  deeper  than  considerations  of  time 
or  immediate  origin.  It  lies  in  the  material  itself, 
and  is  a  relation  of  likeness,  or  moral  unity.  Let 
this  be  our  standard :  —  That  is  Christian  which 
enters  into  or  accords  with  the  view  of  divine 
realities  which  Jesus  Christ  revealed. 

This  is  by  no  means  a  statement  that  means 
little  or  nothing.  Critics  often  tell  us  that  we 
know  much  less  about  Jesus  than  we  thought  we 
knew,  and  some  of  them  think  that  we  know  very 
little  about  him.  Bat  though  it  may  prove  indeed 
that  some  of  our  inherited  knowledge  of  him  needs 
to  be  corrected,  we  can  yet  say  without  fear  that 
the  chief  thing  about  him  we  know  very  well. 
We  know  his  large  significance  in  the  human 
world,  and  the  substance  of  his  message  to  us 
men.  What  view  of  God  and  man  he  stood  for, 
what  he  made  religion  to  be,  what  good  he  offered 
to  mankind,  and  what  gift  of  truth  and  life  actu- 
ally flowed  forth  from  him  into  the  common  lot, 


THE   PRINCIPLE  57 

this  we  know ;  and  this  we  know  on  such  evidence 
that  we  are  sure  the  knowledge  will  not  be  taken 
away  from  us.  This  is  the  great  thing  to  know 
concerning  Jesus  Christ.  If  we  had  forty  Gospels 
instead  of  four,  and  knew  his  life  in  minute  detail, 
and  could  read  volumes  of  his  words  instead  of 
pages,  and  understood  the  mystery  of  his  person 
through  and  through,  but  knew  not  what  light 
upon  divine  realities  he  gave,  we  should  not  know 
him  as  he  is,  or  as  truly  as  we  know  him  now. 

What  then  is  this  ascertained  and  sure  signifi- 
cance of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  never  to  be  changed 
and  which  no  future  modifications  of  our  knowl- 
edge can  abolish  for  us?  From  him  there  came 
forth  the  clearest,  simplest,  worthiest,  and  truest 
view  of  God  and  the  relation  of  God  to  men  that 
has  existed  in  this  world;  and  in  him  there  has 
proved  to  be  inexhaustible  power  to  establish  that 
right  relation  between  God  and  men  in  actual  life. 
There  is  no  doubt  or  mystery  as  to  what  his 
revelation  was,  and  is.  He  has  sent  forth  living 
truth  concerning  God,  and  has  made  it  to  live  in 
men. 

As  to  this  view  of  God  which  constitutes  the 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  necessary  that  just 
here  we  set  it  before  us  in  few  words.     It  is  as 


58  THE    SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

simple  as  it  is  practical  and  glorious.  It  is  a  rev- 
elation made  in  life.  When  Jesus  lived  in  perfect 
filial  fellowship  with  God  and  called  his  disciples 
to  do  the  same,  he  was  making  God  known  as  One 
who  is  worthy  to  receive  filial  confidence  and  love 
from  all  souls,  and  available  for  all  who  will  to 
live  with  him  as  his  children.  He  assumed  in  God 
the  reality  of  all  that  men  need  to  find  in  him.  A 
God  for  men  to  love,  to  trust,  and  to  adore,  a  God 
who  hates  evil  and  desires  to  save  men  from  its 
control,  a  God  of  free,  forgiving  grace,  a  God  to 
whom  men  are  precious  and  who  seeks  them  in 
love  that  he  may  make  them  what  they  ought 
to  be,  a  God,  indeed,  whose  holy  love  is  expressed 
in  the  love  of  Christ  himself  which  goes  to  death 
in  order  that   it  may   save,  —  such   a   God  Jesus 

9  manifested  and  commended  to  our  faith  and 
affection.  A  God  too  who  claims  as  well  as  loves, 
who  holds  his  children  strictly  to  the  spirit  of  their 
Father,  who  insists  that  a  man  shall  love  not  only 
him  but  his  neighbor,  who  is  to  be  served  by  serv- 
ing men  and  honored  by  doing  righteousness,  who 
makes  human  service  and  fellowship  an  element 
in  divine  religion,  and  so  blesses  all  in  blessing 

h, — such  a  God  is  he.  And  since  there  is 
such  a  God  of  free  unpurchased  grace,  Jesus  gives 


THE   PRINCIPLE  59 

us  to  know  that  though  men  are  sinful  they  need 
not  continue  so,  though  they  are  sorrowful  they 
need  not  remain  uncomforted,  though  they  are 
harming  their  fellows  they  can  be  transformed  into 
a  power  to  bless.  Out  of  their  evil  living  they 
can  be  brought  into  such  filial  life  with  God  as 
Jesus  lived. 

Thus  Jesus  is  the  revealer  of  God,  and  is  also  in 
a  true  sense  the  revelation  of  God.  What  he  the 
visible  friend  and  Saviour  is  to  men,  that  God  is 
also,  invisible  but  real  and  now  revealed :  and 
God  is  this  to  sinful  men  because  of  what  he  is 
in  himself,  essentially  and  forever.  Thus  the 
work  of  Jesus  is  revelation,  the  showing  of  God 
in  the  character  in  which  men  may  conceive  of 
him  and  avail  themselves  of  his  being.  It  is  the 
manifestation  of  a  character  which  men  have  never 
clearly  known  in  God.  And  in  Jesus  there  is 
more  than  revelation,  there  is  power,  —  or,  to 
speak  more  truly,  his  revelation  is  not  an  utter- 
ance but  a  work :  it  moves  in  the  realm  of  power, 
and  not  of  mere  ideas.  By  the  operation  of  a 
divine  spiritual  energy  the  gospel  of  new  life  that 
he  proclaimed  is  realized  in  life.  It  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation.  The  Spirit  divine,  ever 
abiding,    inspiring,   and   transforming,   fulfils   the 


60  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN  THEOLOGY 

work  that  Christ  proposes.  By  his  influence  truth 
is  transmuted  into  life,  and  men  are  brought  into 
fellowship  with  God  in  such  life  as  Jesus  lived. 
This  is  revelation  in  life,  conveyed  through  ex- 
perience. In  pursuance  of  the  work  of  Christ 
God  was  experienced  and  therefore  conceived  — 
not  conceived  and  therefore  experienced  —  in  the 
character  and  relation  that  Jesus  has  revealed. 
Life  made  doctrine,  life  made  the  New  Testament, 
life  made  Christian  theology;  and  the  life  was  life 
in  which  God  was  to  men,  in  their  measure,  what 
God  was  to  Jesus,  and  what  Jesus  was  to  men. 

In  this  light  the  Christian  clement,  or  the  gift 
of  Christ,  is  not  a  body  of  words,  or  even  a  body 
of  thoughts,  but  a  body  of  truth.  Concerning 
God  and  men,  it  is  not  only  a  view  expressed,  but 
a  conception  realized.  It  is  a  relation  brought  to 
be  fact,  a  reality  fulfilled  through  spiritual  power. 
I  have  often  found  students  unable  to  grasp  the 
distinction  between  a  body  of  truth  and  a  body  of 
thoughts,  or  even  of  words.  They  had  always 
thought  of  truth  as  expressed  in  words,  and  of 
the  most  exact  wording  as  making  the  best  ex- 
pression. But  the  Christian  bod}'  of  truth  is  a 
body  of  spiritual  reality  put  into  life.  Until  we 
make  this  view  of  Christ's  gift  our  own,  we  shall 


THE   PRINCIPLE  61 

not  rise  to  the  spiritual  clearness  of  the  true  faith, 
or  appreciate  the  true  glory  of  theology. 

Is  there  now  any  need  of  explaining  what  is 
meant  by  saying  that  the  Christian  element  in 
the  Scriptures  is  indispensable  and  formative  in 
theology,  and  nothing  else  from  the  Scriptures 
should  be  admitted  to  a  place  beside  it  ?  I  think 
the  meaning  must  be  plain.  The  view  of  God 
and  life  which  Jesus  Christ  brought  into  effect  is 
true  :  God  and  life  are  such  as  he  has  shown  us. 
This  vital  conception  is  what  Christian  theology 
is  made  of.  This  Christian  theology  is  to  take, 
unfold,  interpret,  apply,  and  carry  to  its  conclu- 
sions. This  and  spiritually  sound  conclusions 
fi'om  it  form  the  bulk  of  Christian  theology. 
Christ's  view  of  God  and  the  relations  of  men  to 
him  is  to  be  received  as  the  formative  truth,  and 
bring  in  all  truth  which  it  implies,  and  exclude 
all  doctrine  that  cannot  live  with  it  in  spiritual 
harmony.  Then  God  will  be  represented  only  in 
the  character  in  which  the  Christian  message  sets 
him  forth,  and  the  general  field  of  theology  will 
be  filled  with  doctrine  that  proceeds  from  this 
view  of  God  by  congenial  development  and  stands 
in  spiritual  unity  with  it.  Conceptions  of  God 
that  conflict  with  this  will  be  banished,  and  with 


62  THE   SCRIPTURES    IN   THEOLOGY 

them  will  go  all  inferences  and  conclusions  from 
them.  If  any  proposed  doctrine  contradicts  the 
large  meaning  and  spirit  of  Christ,  of  course 
Christian  theology  must  have  none  of  it.  If  any 
is  similar  to  the  Christian  view  but  inferior,  less 
conformed  to  the  one  true  diameter,  Christian 
theology  may  thankfully  note  the  service  it  has 
rendered,  but  must  not  rank  it  with  that  which 
excels.  If  any  proposed  doctrine  comes  by  in- 
ference from  some  view  of  God  that  is  inconsistent 
with  that  of  Christ,  and  implies  that  God  is  other 
than  as  he  has  revealed  him,  the  doctrine  is  no 
truer  or  better  than  its  source,  and  must  be 
excluded.  Nothing  may  rank  with  that  which 
Christ  has  directly  given,  except  that  which  be- 
longs with  it  by  true  affinity.  If  from  within  the 
Bible  itself  the  inferior  matter  has  been  gathered, 
that  makes  no  difference.  Discovery  on  sacred 
pages  is  no  reason  why  non-Christian  matter 
should  be  called  Christian  and  embodied  in 
Christian  theology.  Christian  theology  must  be 
all  Christian.  If  it  is  not  so  yet  but  still  needs 
Christianizing,  the  way  is  plain.  Give  the  Chris- 
tian view  of  God  free  scope,  and  allow  it  to  banish 
all  that  contradicts  it. 

With  this  understanding  of  the  object  of  our 


THE  PRINCIPLE  63 

search,  we  have  next  to  look  into  the  Bible  for 
the  Christian  element.  Where  in  the  Bible  shall 
we  find  Christ  for  comparison,  or  that  body  of 
Christian  truth  which  is  to  be  our  test  ?  and  how 
shall  we  know  it  ?  That  which  we  are  to  use  for 
comparison  in  forming  our  theology  is  not  Christ 
represented  by  a  saying  or  two,  even  though  they 
may  be  great  sayings.  It  is  not  Christ  represented 
by  the  sum -total  of  the  words  that  are  attributed 
to  him  by  the  evangelists.  It  is  not  Christ  rep- 
resented by  the  conceptions  of  Paul  or  John. 
Yet  it  takes  all  these  in.  It  is  Christ  as  the 
giver  of  his  high,  large,  vital  conception  of  God 
and  our  human  relations  with  him ;  or  it  is  that 
large  and  vital  conception  given  by  Christ  and 
sent  forth  into  human  experience.  The  Christian 
part  or  element  in  the  Bible  is  that  which  joins  its 
voice  to  the  voice  of  Christ  as  he  tells  of  God, 
without  tone  or  undertone  of  contradiction  to  the 
essential  truths  of  his  great  utterance. 

How  is  it  to  be  recognized  ?  for  only  in  so  far  as 
we  can  distinguish  this  element  from  everything 
else  can  we  be  sure  of  bringing  into  theology  just 
what  we  ought.  What  is  the  true  method  of  find- 
ing what  Christ  has  given  ? 

Only  for  a  moment  need  we  recall  that  easier 


64  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN    THEOLOGY 

way  which  for  us  is  no  more.  That  which  is  from 
God  is  identified  as  his  by  inspiration,  and  the 
Scriptures  are  all  inspired.  So  anything  in  the 
Bible  may  be  received  as  from  the  God  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  accounted  Christian.  Inspiration  is 
upon  it  as  a  sufficient  identifying  mark.  It  is 
tli rough  this  channel  that  the  Bible  has  been  wont 
to  pour  its  entire  contents  into  theology.  But 
this  was  never  a  worthy  method,  for  the  facts  that 
make  against  it  have  always  been  known.  Only 
by  overlooking  what  he  knew  could  a  theologian 
ever  treat  the  whole  Bible  as  fit  material  for  Chris- 
tian theology,  for  the  Bible  has  always  been  known 
to  contain  diverse  elements,  including  some  that 
Christianity  could  not  be  expected  to  assimilate. 
Of  course  we  cannot  follow  this  method  now. 
We  must  discover  the  distinctions  that  exist  in  the 
Bible,  and  gather  out  what  we  ought  to  use. 

The  way  to  identify  the  Christian  element  is 
taught  us  by  its  nature.  Not  because  it  stands  in 
some  special  place  or  bears  some  certifying  mark 
may  we  call  anything  Christian,  but  only  because 
it  is  what  it  is,  and  deserves  the  name.  Evidence 
is  to  be  in  the  thing  itself,  not  in  its  locality  or  its 
label.  Inspiration  was  an  outward  mark,  but  the 
inward  certifier  is  quality ;  and  quality  can  certify 


THE  PRINCIPLE  65 

itself  only  by  appeal  to  judgment,  or  discernment. 
Quality  must  be  recognized:  there  is  no  other 
way. 

I  once  asked  a  class  of  students  how  they  knew 
a  Christian  thought  when  they  saw  it.  They  in- 
stantly took  a  keen  interest  in  the  question,  which 
they  had  never  asked  themselves  in  just  that  form 
before,  and  began  to  feel  about  for  a  test  by  which 
a  thought  might  be  identified  as  truly  Christian. 
Not  one  of  them  replied,  "  By  finding  it  in  the 
Bible,"  or,  "  By  having  it  certified  by  inspiration." 
Not  one  proposed  any  external  sign  or  test  what- 
ever. Every  man  proceeded  to  suggest  some 
Christian  quality  in  the  thought,  or  some  compari- 
son with  Christian  truth  already  known.  In  other 
words,  they  all  said  that  we  must  hope  to  know  a 
Christian  thought  by  recognition.  Every  answer 
affirmed  that  we  must  judge,  or  discern,  the  Chris- 
tian quality.  My  students  were  not  posing  as 
rationalists,  either.  They  were  simply  common- 
sense  Christians,  mainly  conservative  in  type,  look- 
ing the  facts  in  the  face.  They  rightly  felt  that 
the  name  Christian  must  be  given  only  to  that 
which  bears  internal  evidence  of  deserving  it ;  and 
they  saw  that  our  only  way  to  know  whether  such 

evidence   exists  is   to    judge,   or   to  employ  that 

5 


6G  THE   SCRIPTURES    IN  THEOLOGY 

Christian  discernment  which  is  the  power  of  vision 
in  the  spiritual  world.  The  short  method  is  the 
true  method.  The  way  to  know  a  Christian 
thought  is  the  same  as  the  way  to  perceive  the 
blue  in  the  sky,  —  look  at  it  and  discern  the  qual- 
ity. We  may  misjudge,  but  that  is  the  fault  of 
our  poor  senses,  not  of  the  method  of  spiritual 
sense-perception.  There  is  no  way  but  to  judge, 
and  recognize. 

In  this  method  there  is  nothing  new  and  untried. 
It  is  the  most  commonplace  of  things.  All  Chris- 
tians would  agree  that  nothing  ought  to  go  into 
theology  but  that  which  is  Christian,  and  the  most 
of  us  are  ready  to  tell  what  ought  to  go  in  and 
what  ought  not.  We  are  always  judging  one  an- 
other's theologies  as  Christian  or  not,  on  the  whole 
or  in  special  points.  We  judge  whole  types  of 
theology  in  this  way,  and  we  judge  men  and  their 
influence,  —  theologians,  teachers,  preachers.  My 
students  started  no  new  heresy,  they  struck  into 
the  orthodox  practice.  Nor,  I  must  add,  do  we 
usually  pass  these  judgments  by  comparison  with 
some  special  test,  found  for  example  in  a  single 
text  or  saying  of  the  Lord.  Sometimes  we  do 
that,  but  oftener  we  carry  in  mind,  just  as  I  have 
proposed,  the  impression  of  a  body  of  truth  larger 


THE   PRINCIPLE  67 

than  a  few  great  sayings,  and  approve  or  condemn 
by  comparison  with  that.  The  habit  of  using  such 
a  body  of  truth,  not  distinctly  defined  and  yet  defi- 
nite enough  to  serve  as  a  standard,  is  as  old  as 
theological  judgment,  and  as  modern  as  ourselves. 
Nevertheless  there  is  a  deeper  note  that  ought 
here  to  be  struck.  The  popular  practice  in  judg- 
ment is  not  sure  to  go  deep  enough.  If  we  are  to 
identify  the  Christian  element,  we  need  to  have  in 
exercise  the  full  outfit  of  our  spiritual  powers.  It 
is  a  spiritual  action.  We  are  constantly  tempted 
to  rely  upon  the  wrong  processes  for  discovery  of 
what  is  Christian.  Sometimes  we  turn  back  to 
history,  and  quote  doctrinal  accumulations  as  that 
Christian  substance  which  we  are  seeking.  Some- 
times we  look  to  scholarship  and  critical  acumen, 
and  imagine  that  keen  eyes  of  the  intellect  will  see 
the  Lord.  But  bej^ond  all  help  that  such  processes 
may  afford,  there  is  something  that  can  be  accom- 
plished by  no  such  means.  There  is  a  spiritual 
vision  involved.  No  man  even  in  his  secret  soul 
may  boast  of  possessing  it,  and  yet  it  needs  to  be 
the  very  ideal  and  object  of  us  all.  Deep  calls 
unto  deep:  the  Christian  element  appeals  to  the 
Christian  element.  It  is  the  spirit  that  discerns 
the  Spirit,  the  child  that  knows  the  Father.     There 


68  THE   SCRIPTURES   IX   THEOLOGY 

is  an  inner  life  in  which  power  to  know  the  Chris- 
tian truth  is  developed.  Love  of  holiness  discerns 
the  holy.  There  is  a  practical  sympathy  with  the 
redeeming  love  of  Christ,  longing  and  rejoicing  to 
save,  out  of  which  we  may  be  able  to  look  with 
open  vision  into  the  redeeming  love  of  God. 
There  is  a  spiritual  habitude  under  whose  influ- 
ence we  may  grow  able  to  detect  the  faintest 
gleam  of  the  genuine  divine  light,  and  recognize 
Christ  and  his  likeness  everywhere.  So  too  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  a  trained  spiritual  reasonableness, 
by  use  of  which  we  may  draw  right  conclusions 
from  eternal  verity,  and  perceive  what  other  things 
must  be  true  if  God  is  such  a  God  as  Jesus  shows. 
Such  spiritual  faculties,  inspired  by  God  and  clari- 
fied by  experience  in  Christ,  we  need  for  sure  dis- 
cernment of  what  is  Christian,  within  the  Bible  as 
well  as  without. 

Long  practice  in  the  life  of  reverence  may  easily 
suggest  a  hesitation  when  it  le  proposed  that 
we  pass  judgment  upon  the  Christian  quality  of 
what  we  find  within  the  Bible.  Outside,  it  is 
different.  We  have  no  hesitation  about  reading 
Calvin  or  Channing  or  Edwards  with  discrimina- 
tion, and  affirming  while  we  read  that  this  is 
Christian  and  that  is  not,  but  the  region  within 


THE   PRINCIPLE  69 

the  Bible  may  seem  too  sacred  for  us  to  enter 
in  -such  a  manner.  What  are  we,  we  may  ask, 
that  we  should  presume  to  pass  judgment  upon 
thoughts  that  are  written  in  the  holy  book  ?  Does 
the  due  reverence  permit  us  to  rule  out  of  our 
theology  as  non-Christian  something  that  the  Bible 
offers  ?  How  could  we  look  into  the  face  of  God, 
standing  in  so  presumptuous  a  position  ? 

Such  hesitation  may  be  a  part  of  our  religious 
inheritance,  but  none  the  less  does  it  need  to  be 
unlearned.  It  is  better  to  ask  what  are  we  that 
we  should  decline  to  judge.  How  indeed  shall 
we  raise  our  faces  to  God  if  we  will  not  exercise 
the  powers  that  he  has  given  us  ?  What  is  a 
proper  function  of  a  Christian  man,  if  not  to 
know  a  Christian  truth  when  he  sees  it?  Christ 
has  brought  us  the  true  light,  and  it  is  the  will 
of  God  that  we  should  learn  to  judge  all  things 
by  its  help.  We  are  only  beginners  yet  in  the 
divine  judgment  to  which  we  are  called,  but  as 
beginners  we  must  undertake  the  work  and  do  our 
best  and  truest ;  for  only  by  such  loyal  endeavor 
of  imperfect  sons  of  God  can  that  which  theology 
needs  ever  be  accomplished.  And  never  have 
we  been  taught  that  the  covers  of  the  Bible  were 
intended  to  shut  out  the  searching  light  of  C  hrist 


70  THE   SCRIPTURES  IX   THEOLOGY 

and  exempt  its  contents  from  the  judgment  of 
his  truth.  That  light  shines  through  the  covers 
of  the  Bible,  as  it  shines  through  everything 
else.  What  are  we  that  we  should  refuse  to  say 
whether  we  see  the  Christian  quality  in  what  we 
read  within  them?  Shall  we  not  tell  the  truth 
before  God  ?  And  after  all,  what  is  there  so 
presumptuous  in  saying  that  the  one  hundred 
and  third  Psalm  is  Christian  in  its  view  of  God, 
or  that  the  nameless  prophets  of  the  Exile  were 
very  near  the  kingdom  and  even  within  it?  and 
where  is  the  presumption  in  judging  that  the 
spirit  of  the  one  hundred  and  ninth  Psalm  is 
not  the  mind  of-  Christ?  —  for  all  these  three 
are  just  such  judgments,  of  recognition  or  non- 
recognition  of  the  Christian  element,  as  our 
principle  requires  us  to  pass.  Hesitation  seems 
superfluous  when  we  see  what  the  proposed  work 
really  is. 

This  leads  me  to  say  that  it  is  far  too  late  for 
us  to  shrink  from  passing  judgment  upon  matters 
that  lie  within  the  Bible.  We  and  our  Christian 
predecessors  have  always  been  doing  it,  and  we 
cannot  stop.  The  history  of  this  operation  is 
very  long  and  very  suggestive.  To  human  judg- 
ment we  owe  the   Scriptures   themselves,  and  to 


THE  PRINCIPLE  71 

human  judgment  with  respect  to  their  highest 
qualities ;  for  by  what  process  was  the  Canon 
formed,  of  Old  Testament  or  of  New,  except  by 
the  judgment  of  the  God-loving  people  as  to 
the  fitness  of  certain  writings,  because  of  their 
authorship  and  their  character,  to  represent  the 
religion  that  produced  them  ?  It  is  because  the 
Christian  people  judged  what  was  Christian,  and 
selected  what  was  most  Christian,  that  we  have 
a  New  Testament  at  all.  We  are  indebted  to 
human  judgment  also  for  all  the  strength  that 
textual  criticism  has  added  to  our  confidence  is. 
our  sacred  documents.  Reckon  up  if  you  can 
the  human  judgments  that  have  entered  into  the 
production  of  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  New 
Testament,  or  any  other  good  text  of  the  Scrip- 
tures; and  they  have  not  all  consisted  merely  in 
weighing  external  evidence.  All  literary  and 
historical  criticism  is  work  of  human  judgment, 
and  so  is  all  work  in  biblical  theology.  All  exe- 
gesis is  judgment,  intellectual  and  spiritual:  one 
part  of  its  life  is  sound  mental  understanding, 
and  the  other  part  is  spiritual  insight.  Think 
how  much  human  judgment  has  been  expended 
upon  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  remember 
how    little    the    interpreters    have    shrunk    from 


72  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

judging  what  was  Christian,  when  the  bearing 
of  Paul's  thought  upon  theology  was  involved 
in  their  inquiries.  Even  the  doctrine  of  high 
inspiration  was  a  product  of  human  judgment, 
for  it  was  built  up  by  inferences  and  deductions, 
processes  of  the  mind.  All  systems  of  theology 
are  framed  by  human  judgment,  which  in  forming 
them  has  to  pass  upon  the  quality,  the  meaning 
and  the  theological  implications  of  the  Scriptures. 
And  remember  that  in  all  the  nobler  parts  of  this 
work  the  judgment  that  has  been  exercised  is  the 
work  of  spiritual  discernment,  a  work  of  the  mind 
of  Christ  in  men.  This  divine  gift  Christians 
have  all  the  time  been  endeavoring  to  put  to  its 
use:  even  when  they  failed  they  have  failed  in 
this  high  enterprise,  using  as  they  were  able  one 
of  the  dearest  gifts  of  God  to  his  beloved.  To 
see  with  the  eyes  of  Christ,  to  call  that  good 
which  God  calls  good,  to  rule  out  that  which  the 
Christian  truth  rules  out,  —  this  is  the  highest 
work  and  privilege  of  God's  children.  We  need 
not  draw  back  as  if  this  work  of  insight  were  not 
for  us  :  rather  should  we  enter  upon  it  with  a 
humble  joy. 

If   we  define  the  Christian  element  as  broadly 
—  some  would  say  as  loosely  —  as  I  have   pro- 


THE   PRINCIPLE  73 

posed,  and  asked  the  people  to  join  ns  in  our 
conclusions,  we  shall  be  sure  to  meet  two  kindred 
objections.  Perhaps  the  influence  of  them  may 
color  the  thought  of  our  own  minds,  as  well  as 
of  those  whom  we  wish  to  help.  I,  at  any  rate, 
am  perfectly  familiar  with  them  in  the  history 
of  my  own  thinking.     Listen  to  the  two  together. 

The  position  is  no  position,  someone  says,  but 
a  moving  point.  There  is  no  plain  standard  of 
Christianity  in  this  vague  body  of  truth,  for  the 
method  is  subjective,  and  each  man  is  left  to 
make  a  Christianity  for  himself.  We  must  have 
an  objective  external  standard  of  Christianity  that 
will  mean  the  same  to  all,  or  Christianity  will 
escape  us  when  we  look  for  it.  With  your  broad 
principle  you  take  away  our  objective  standard, 
and  you  take  away  our  Christianity  itself,  through 
uncertainty  as  to  what  it  is.  As  for  theology, 
there  will  not  be  enough  left  to  make  theology  of. 
There  are  many  familiar  voices,  some  of  them 
revered,  that  I  can  hear  enunciating  these  kin- 
dred objections. 

As  to  the  removal  of  the  objective  standard  of 
Christianity,  I  deny  that  our  principle  leaves  us 
without  such  a  standard.  I  affirm  that  by  it 
alone  can  we  obtain  a  true  one.     When  we  say 


74  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

that  Christianity  is  a  body  of  truth  discerned  by 
the  powers  that  are  given  us  for  discernment  of 
truth,  have  we  not  set  forth  a  standard?  I  am 
assuming,  indeed,  that  we  believe  in  the  reality 
of  large  spiritual  truth  discernible  by  human  pow- 
ers divinely  influenced.  If  only  we  believe  in  this, 
surely  we  have  in  the  significance  of  Jesus  Christ 
a  real  standard  of  what  Christianity  is,  not  sub- 
jective, and  perfectly  intelligible.  But  I  freely 
own  that  the  principle  ignores  the  need  of  a 
standard  visible  or  audible,  so  unequivocal  that 
it  can  be  understood  in  only  one  way.  There  is 
no  such  standard  of  Christianity,  and  there  can 
be  none.  The  church  and  the  Bible  have  been 
taken  to  be  such  standards.  Among  Protestants 
it  has  been  very  generally  held  that  the  right  use 
of  the  Bible  in  theology  was  use  of  it  as  the  clear 
and  unequivocal  external  standard  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith.  But  the  Bible  does  not  conform  better 
to  the  definition  than  does  the  church.  The  Re- 
formers hoped  that  the  Bible  would  prove  to  be 
that  unifying  standard  which  the  church  had 
failed  to  be ;  but  it  has  turned  out  otherwise. 
The  Bible  has  not  shown  that  it  can  be  under- 
stood only  in  one  way  by  truth-loving  souls. 
When  held  as  standard  it  has  yielded,  or  sup- 


THE  PRINCIPLE  75 

ported,  the  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  theologies, 
which  oppose  each  other  throughout,  and  represent 
God  in  two  characters ;  and  it  is  claimed  to-day 
with  equal  sincerity  by  a  hundred  sects  as  the 
special  authority  of  each.  It  is  not  adapted  to 
serve  as  a  plain  standard  from  which  only  a 
single  meaning  can  be  drawn.  It  contains  too 
much ;  there  is  too  much  variety  in  its  points  of 
view,  and  too  much  humanity  in  its  writers :  there 
is  too  much  besides  Christ.  Its  highest  part  I 
am  proposing  as  standard  for  Christianity;  but 
a  single  unequivocal  standard  the  Bible  as  a 
book  can  never  be.  And  moreover,  the  more 
we  know  of  what  is  Christian,  the  more  clearly 
we  see  that  no  single  outward  standard,  like  a 
body  of  writings,  can  possibly  represent  it  and 
do  it  justice.  What  is  Christian  has  its  power 
in  spirit  and  life.  It  cannot  be  formulated.  To 
insist  upon  a  form  of  words  for  it,  even  of  inspired 
words,  is  to  exchange  it  for  something  else.  Its 
spiritual  glory  is  that  it  is  not  rigid  and  unequiv- 
ocal, the  same  to  all.  It  is  the  same  to  all,  yet 
with  endless  variety,  like  life,  or  love,  or  God. 
It  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  but  this  liability 
is  only  the  defect  of  its  highest  quality.  So  we 
need  not  regret  the  absence  of  a  Christian  stand- 


76  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

ard  of  theology  that  can  stand  as  test  of  uniform- 
ity, and  hold  all  Christians  to  one  form  and  mode. 
That  would  not  be  a  Christian  tiling.  The  proper 
standard  for  judging  what  is  Christian  and  what 
is  not  is  the  rich  body  of  Christian  truth,  reveal- 
ing God  for  what  he  is,  and  entering  into  life, 
calling  with  all  the  solemnity  of  divine  judgment 
for  the  abandonment  of  all  views  that  conflict 
with  that  glorious  revelation. 

This  leads  me  to  the  other  objection,  that  our 
principle  takes  awaj'  the  definiteness  of  our  Chris- 
tianity, and  leaves  us  uncertain  as  to  what  it  is. 
We  are  so  used  to  formula-practice  in  theology 
that  this  objection  comes  naturally  enough.  Never- 
theless, it  is  unworthy  of  Christians,  for  it  does 
deep  injustice  to  our  actual  Christian  experience 
and  certainty.  There  are  many  who  feel  that 
unless  we  use  the  Bible  in  the  old  way  as  a  deci- 
sive standard  for  our  Christianity  we  shall  have 
nothing  left,  and  that  if  we  rely  upon  judgment 
and  discovery  for  identifying  the  Christian  element 
in  the  Scriptures,  we  shall  discover  so  little  that  it 
will  scarcely  be  wortli  discovering.  But  that  im- 
plies that  Christianity  is  so  small  that  searching 
will  not  find  it,  or  so  like  everything  else  that 
it   cannot    be    distinguished    except    by   a   label. 


THE  PRINCIPLE  77 

Against  this  view  of  the  dimness  and  undistin- 
guishability  of  divine  revelation  in  Christ,  every 
Christian  ought  to  protest  in  the  name  of  truth 
and  life.  I  utterly  deny  that  Christianity  is  so 
vague  a  thing  that  spiritual  discernment  cannot 
find  it  if  we  seek,  or  so  poor  a  thing  as  not 
to  be  worth  the  search.  Can  it  indeed  be  so 
undiscoverable  if  God  is  ill  it?  Pardon  me  if 
I  return  a  moment  to  the  account  of  it  that  I 
have  given,  and  call  attention  to  the  definiteness 
of  that  body  of  truth  which  Christ  has  uttered 
forth  into  life  for  mankind.  Here  we  have  no 
shadowy  and  elusive  thing,  but  a  contribution 
to  our  theology  that  stands  perfectly  solid  and 
strong. 

The  heart  of  theology  is  the  doctrine  of  God  in 
his  relations  with  men:  of  this  the  rest  is  the 
unfolding.  This  is  the  heart  of  theology  because 
it  is  the  substance  of  religion.  Now  what  Jesus 
taught  was  not  theology  at  all :  it  was  religion. 
He  lived  in  God,  he  lived  out  God's  heart  in  his 
own  life,  he  showed  men  how  to  live  in  God. 
This  is  true  religion,  and  therefore  this  is  true 
theology.  In  what  he  thus  taught  there  is  no 
dimness  or  uncertainty.  God  is  such  a  God  as 
Jesus   lived  with  in   holy  fellowship,   and    such 


78  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

a  God  as  Jesus  showed  forth  in  life  and  love  and 
death.  God  is  the  God  with  whom  Jesus  told 
men  they  might  live  in  holy  fellowship,  sinful 
though  they  were,  because  he  was  a  Saviour-God. 
He  is  worthy  of  all  love  and  trust,  for  he  is  like 
Jesus  in  that  love  for  goodness  and  for  men  which 
bore  Jesus  to  the  cross.  He  delights  to  pardon, 
and  rejoices  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth :  he  is 
a  God  of  searching  and  exacting  holiness  also, 
demanding  likeness  to  himself.  To  men  who 
trust  him  he  will  be  the  God  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  a  Father,  and  he  will  be  the  Spirit  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  indwelling,  revealing,  sanctifying. 
He  is  a  God  who  will  make  men  members  of  his 
own  divine  family,  and  true  members  of  the 
human  family  too,  living  with  their  brothers  as 
they  ought.  This  is  the  heart  of  Christianity; 
and  this  truth  has  been  so  tested  in  life  that  we 
may  receive  it  as  true  indeed. 

Now  what  I  affirm  is  that  in  this  body  of  living 
truth  we  have  a  clear  Christianity,  and  we  have 
a  distinct  and  positive  body  of  doctrine  for  the- 
ology. Here,  first  of  all,  we  have  that  decisive 
element  for  theology,  a  strong  conception  of  God 
in  his  eternal  and  necessary  character.  From 
knowing  him  as  he  appears  in  Christ,  we  are  able 


THE   PRINCIPLE  79 

to  understand  and  acknowledge  the  claims  which 
he  makes  upon  men.  In  the  light  of  what  Jesus 
has  shown  us,  we  can  have  no  doubt  as  to  the 
spirit  that  will  animate  him  in  his  large  relations 
with  mankind,  and  we  can  obtain  a  trustworthy 
point  of  view  for  interpreting  his  gracious  activi- 
ties. Working  in  loyalty  to  the  Christian  spirit, 
we  can  be  reasonably  sure  of  a  right  judgment  as 
to  what  else  is  true  if  Jesus'  testimony  to  God  is 
true,  —  and  this  is  the  open  door  to  a  large  part 
of  our  theological  thought.  In  this  light  there 
is  no  permanent  difficulty  in  knowing  what  is 
Christian  and  what  is  not,  or  in  judging  what 
ought  to  enter  into  Christian  theology.  For  a 
time  we  may  be  in  doubt  on  some  point,  for  there 
may  be  many  influences  that  confuse  or  delay  our 
judgment :  time,  experience,  and  holy  training  will 
be  needed  before  we  can  master  the  great  Chris- 
tian lesson  in  its  simplicity,  so  fond  are  we  of 
complicated  schemes.  But  the  truth  in  Christ 
is  not  only  clear  but  clarifying,  and  the  promise 
of  true  vision  will  be  fulfilled.  So  Christianity 
is  not  lost,  but  simplified  and  elevated.  It  stands 
clear,  self-evidencing,  divine,  and  imparts  to  the- 
ology its  own  clearness,  simplicity,  and  strength. 
And  if  the  objection   still  recurs  that  by  this 


80  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

broad  definition  of  what  is  Christian  I  am  opening 
an  outlook  into  endless  differences,  since  each  man 
will  be  his  own  master  as  to  what  he  will  receive 
as  Christian,  and  they  will  not  agree,  and  there  will 
be  more  theologies  than  ever,  I  reply,  Not  so. 
There  is  a  clear  outlook  in  the  other  direction. 
Theology  will  be  more  unanimous  when  it  is 
required  only  to  be  Christian,  than  it  used  to  be 
when  it  was  required  to  take  the  whole  Bible  in. 
It  is  a  simpler  matter  to  be  in  harmony  with 
Christ  alone  than  to  agree  with  Christ  and  all  the 
writers  of  Old  Testament  and  New  in  all  their  reli- 
gions utterances.  If  theology  has  only  to  include 
the  gospel,  there  is  good  hope  that  Christian 
students  may  yet  come  to  a  real  harmony.  But 
thus  for  theology  has  been  expected  to  assimilate 
botli  the  gospel  and  the  law,  and  do  justice  not 
only  to  the  reality  of  salvation  by  free  grace,  but 
to  the  tradition  of  salvation  through  earned  right- 
eon->ne.ss  as  well.  It  has  had  to  show  God  forth 
in  the  fatherly  character  in  which  Christ  revealed 
him,  and  at  the  same  time  to  preserve  the  kingly 
and  judicial  conceptions  of  his  relations  with  men 
that  are  pictured  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  lias 
had  to  conceive  of  God  as  a  spirit,  and  yet  keep 
in  vogue  large  results  from  the  less  spiritual  and 


THE   PRINCIPLE  81 

anthropomorphic  ideas  of  earlier  time.  It  has  had 
to  proclaim  him  as  purely  good,  and  yet  make 
room  for  his  doing  many  things  attributed  to  him 
within  the  Bible  that  were  not  good.  It  has  had 
to  present  the  Christian  ideal  for  human  life,  and 
yet  do  reverence  to  inferior  ideals  that  were 
embodied  in  ancient  theocratic  and  legal  institu- 
tions. It  has  had  to  receive  testimony  not  only 
from  Christ  and  those  who  had  learned  of  him, 
but  also  from  men  who  had  never  heard  of  him 
and  from  institutions  that  he  superseded.  What 
wonder  that  there  have  been  many  judgments,  and 
theology  has  been  mixed,  inharmonious,  contra- 
dictory, uncertain?  The  one  hope  of  a  growing 
harmony  in  Christian  theology  dwells  exactly  in 
that  simplifying  and  clarifying  of  the  standard 
which  is  here  proposed,  by  taking  the  Christian 
element  alone,  as  all  in  all.  To  think  with  Christ, 
with  men  before  Christ,  and  with  disciples  of 
Christ  who  understood  him  variously,  is  impossi- 
ble ;  but  to  think  with  Christ  himself,  in  loyalty  to 
the  God  whom  he  reveals,  may  lie  within  the  field 
of  hope.  Even  thus  unity  will  not  come  at  once, 
for  we  cannot  learn  in  a  day  to  think  in  harmony 
with  Christ,  nor  in  another  day  to  follow  on  to  all 
that  such  harmony  implies;  but  this  is  the  way 

6 


82  THE  SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

that  leads  to  the  elimination  of  differences  and  the 
establishment  for  theology  of  an  undying  oneness. 

Now  for  a  moment  I  must  sing  the  praises  of 
the  principle  that  I  have  been  trying  to  set  forth. 
I  affirm  without  fear  that  the  Christian  element 
in  the  Scriptures,  which  is  the  large  view  of  God 
in  his  relations  with  men  which  we  owe  to  Christ, 
enters  by  right  into  our  theology,  brings  with  it 
what  belongs  with  it  by  true  affinity,  and  casts 
out  all  that  cannot  live  with  it  in  peace.  I  praise 
this  principle  as  plain  and  unambiguous.  It 
makes  the  decisive  question  for  theology  to  be 
no  longer,  "What  is  in  the  Bible?"  but,  "What 
is  of  Christ  and  like  Christ  ?  "  —  and  for  the 
answering  of  this  question  it  defines  Christ  from 
his  large  spiritual  work  and  gift  This  gives  a 
clear  meaning,  that  grows  ever  clearer  as  we 
know  Christ  more  profoundly.  Also,  this  prin- 
ciple is  Christian.  Surely  there  is  no  need  of 
proving  that,  for  it  enthrones  the  Christian  ele- 
ment alone,  and  admits  no  other  in  its  presence. 

Moreover,  this  principle  does  justice  to  all  the 
elements  in  the  case,  as  no  other  method  of  using 
the  Scriptures  in  theology  has  ever  done. 

First  of  all,  it  does  justice  to  the  Scriptures, 
It  disclaims   preconceived   theories  of   them,   and 


THE  PRINCIPLE  83 

examines  them.  It  neither  exalts  nor  degrades 
them  out  of  their  actual  position,  but  takes  them 
for  exactly  what  they  are,  and  uses  them  in  their 
real  character.  It  takes  them  not  as  they  look 
on  superficial  reading,  but  as  they  mean  on  full 
examination.  To  discover  what  they  are  and 
what  they  teach,  it  welcomes  all  worthy  forms 
of  study,  historical,  critical,  devotional.  It  uses 
them  not  by  text-picking  and  word-matching,  as 
we  must  own  that  they  have  sometimes  been  used, 
but  by  discernment  of  their  internal  characteris- 
tics and  their  onward  sweep.  That  the  Scrip- 
tures exalt  Christ  above  themselves,  probably  all 
Christians  would  admit  in  theory,  but  many  find 
it  hard  to  admit  in  practice.  This  principle  alone 
assumes  that  fact  and  carries  it  to  consistent 
application  in  theology.  It  distinctly  subordi- 
nates the  Bible  to  the  Lord,  the  book  to  his  teach- 
ing. When  Christ  has  entered  with  his  revelation 
of  God,  it  welcomes  him  with  the  honor  that  is 
his  due.  It  places  him  above  those  who  heralded 
him  beforehand,  and  above  those  who  adored  him 
afterward,  for  in  him  and  not  in  them  it  finds 
the  centre  and  test  of  Christianity.  So  it  does 
justice  to  the  Scriptures  by  accepting  as  their 
testimony  in  theology  only  the  testimony  of  him 


84  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

to  whom  they  bear  witness.  To  make  the  Scrip- 
tures that  witness  of  Christ  independent  witnesses 
for  doctrine  that  differs  from  Christ,  it  refuses, 
in  the  name  of  Christ  and  of  the  Scriptures  too. 
It  does  them  the  justice  of  not  holding  them  any 
longer  responsible  for  their  superseded  parts,  and 
giving  them  the  privilege  of  testifying  to  Christ. 
No  other  honor  could  the  witnessing  Scriptures 
ask  than  this,  that  they  be  permitted  to  point  to 
him  who  was  born  that  he  might  bear  witness  to 
the  truth,  and  say,  "  Hear  ye  him." 

Again,  our  principle  does  justice  to  theology, 
for  it  makes  theology  Christian.  It  insists  that 
theology  that  bears  the  Christian  name  shall  bear 
the  Christian  character.  So  on  the  one  hand  it 
provides  that  the  full  wealth  of  the  Christian  reve- 
lation shall  be  poured  into  theology:  that  the  all- 
glorious  truth  that  Jesus  imparted  shall  enter  in 
its  fulness  and  bring  forth  fruit  after  its  kind, 
yielding  all  such  inferences  and  developments  as 
are  congruous  witli  its  spiritual  quality.  It  admits 
to  theology  all  that  Christ  revealed  concerning 
God,  and  all  that  is  true  if  that  is  true.  And  on 
the  other  hand  it  provides  for  excluding  from  the- 
ology all  incongruous  elements,  putting  the  ban 
upon  all  that  can  contradict  Jesus  or  detract  from 


THE   PRINCIPLE  85 

his  testimony.  It  safeguards  the  religious  char- 
acter of  theology,  for  it  acknowledges  Jesus  as 
teacher  in  religion  and  bringer  of  the  supreme  re- 
ligious gift,  and  it  assures  his  religious  gift  the 
precedence  in  theology  over  the  contributions  of 
metaphysics  and  philosophy,  however  helpful  they 
may  be.  So  it  exalts  theology  to  its  rightful  place 
of  honor,  as  the  servant  of  the  revealing  Christ 
and  the  living  Saviour  God  whom  he  reveals. 

Our  principle  does  justice  also  to  the  theologian. 
It  pays  him  the  compliment  that  is  due  to  a  man 
devoted  to  the  highest  work,  for  it  is  a  reason- 
able principle,  calling  for  honorable  and  straight- 
forward processes  of  the  mind,  which  alone  are 
worthy  of  the  highest  realm.  It  does  him  the 
honor  also  of  demanding  much  of  him ;  for  it  is  a 
spiritual  principle,  and  therefore  most  exacting, 
which  is  only  fair  to  a  man  whose  powers  are 
turned  to  the  knowledge  of  God.  No  other  prin- 
ciple for  using  the  Scriptures  demands  so  much  of 
the  user  as  this.  It  requires  all  knowledge  of  the 
Bible.  It  calls  for  deep  and  true  spiritual  percep- 
tion, unerring  sympathy  with  the  mind  of  Christ, 
and  ability  to  distinguish  a  Christian  thought  from 
the  multitude  of  other  thoughts  that  may  throng 
it  about.     It  requires  him  to  be  a  man  who  recog- 


86  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

nizes  the  face  of  God  wherever  a  glimpse  of  it 
shines  through;  a  man  who  can  judge  divine 
things  in  Christ's  own  spirit,  so  as  to  know  what 
are  true  developments  from  his  revelation  and 
what  inferences  from  his  central  truth  are  spiritu- 
ally valid;  a  man,  too,  so  loyal  to  the  heavenly 
vision  tiiat  he  will  speak  the  word  that  he  per- 
ceives to  be  divine,  even  though  it  be  called  hu- 
man by  men  who  love  the  Lord  as  well  as  he.  All 
this  a  laborer  in  divine  theology  ought  to  be,  and 
upon  these  worthy  qualities  in  him  our  principle 
insists. 

And  then  it  gives  him  his  liberty,  the  glori- 
ous liberty  of  the  sons  of  God.  It  sets  above 
him  only  that  glorious  body  of  living  truth  which 
Jesus  has  given  us,  and  invites  him  to  contribute, 
if  lie  is  able,  to  the  positive  contents  of  theology. 
According  to  our  principle,  thought  may  be  wel- 
comed into  theology  that  did  not  originate  directly 
in  the  Scriptures.  Whatever  is  in  unison  with  the 
mind  of  Christ  may  enter,  from  whatever  source. 
The  Scriptures  do  not  veto  the  thinking  of  the 
present-day  theologian :  they  invite  him  to  think, 
inspire  his  thinking,  and  welcome  his  thought  if  it 
be  Christian.  Possibly  lie  may  make  some  new 
application  of  Christian  truth,  or  draw  some  infer- 


THE   PRINCIPLE  87 

ence,  spiritually  valid  but  not  before  accepted, 
from  the  Christian  thought  of  God.  He  may  be 
able  to  rule  out,  with  divine  authority,  something 
that  has  remained  to  vex  theology  by  its  incon- 
gruous character.  Any  true  man,  thinking  God's 
thoughts  after  him,  may  any  day  bring  to  theology 
a  contribution  that  will  belong  to  its  very  sub- 
stance. This  is  nothing  new,  for  theologians  have 
always  wrought  in  hope  of  being  able  to  do  this 
veiy  thing ;  but  they  have  done  it  under  some 
constraint  from  theories  that  they  held.  But  the 
practice  accords  with  a  truer  theory.  In  loyalty 
to  the  Christian  view  of  God,  wherein  there  is  no 
bondage,  there  is  opened  to  the  student  all  honor- 
able spiritual  freedom,  in  which  his  highest  powers 
have  utmost  scope  and  range,  for  the  finding  out 
of  all  high  matters  that  can  be  known  to  men. 

Thus,  doing  justice  to  the  Scriptures,  to  theol- 
ogy and  to  the  theologian,  our  principle  stands 
vindicated  as  worthy  to  govern  the  use  of  the 
Scriptures  in  theology. 

When  our  principle  has  won  its  rights,  some- 
thing will  come  of  it.  There  will  be  negative 
results  in  the  field  of  theology  by  way  of  elimina- 
tion, and  positive  results  by  way  of  construction. 
These  we  shall  consider  in  the  hours  that  follow. 


Ill 

RESULTS  NEGATIVE 

If  we  apply  our  principle,  and  use  in  theology  only 
the  Christian  element  from  the  Scriptures,  the 
results  will  not  all  be  directly  constructive :  they 
will  be  in  part  destructive,  if  we  wish  to  call  them 
so,  though  that  is  not  the  best  name,  as  we  shall 
see.  Some  familiar  matters  will  be  missed  from 
theology  when  Christ  has  the  field  to  himself.  I 
cannot  enumerate  all  the  matters  that  will  thus  be 
eliminated,  but  I  must  devote  this  hour  to  sugges- 
tions as  to  the  way  in  which  these  results,  benefi- 
cent and  not  harmful,  will  be  brought  to  pass. 

First  may  be  mentioned  two  or  three  topics  that 
stand  by  themselves,  with  their  relation  to  theology 
determined  in  another  manner.  There  are  some 
eases  in  which  the  contribution  of  the  Scriptures 
to  theology  is  immediately  withdrawn,  as  soon  as 
we  have  discovered  what  the  Scriptures  in  ques- 
tion really  are,  —  withdrawn  because  it  has  become 
apparent  that  the  writings  that  lie  before  us  are 
not  witnesses  on  the  question.     We  used  to  sup- 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  89 

pose  that  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  were  wit- 
nesses concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  world 
and  man  were  created,  and,  through  connection 
with  the  time-record  of  the  book,  concerning  the 
age  of  the  world  and  mankind.  But  we  have 
learned  to  understand  these  writings  better,  and 
now  we  know  that  they  are  not  historical  records, 
and  bear  no  testimony  as  to  the  age  of  the  world 
and  man,  or  the  manner  of  creation.  If  this  testi- 
mony be  omitted,  the  Scriptures  contain  no  testi- 
mony on  these  subjects,  and  hand  nothing  over  to 
theology  concerning  them.  Theology  needs  a 
right  conception  of  the  human  race,  but  does  not 
obtain  from  the  Bible  an  account  of  its  origin, 
or  the  origin  of  the  world.  The  facts  must  be 
learned  from  other  sources.  This  is  a  case  in 
which  the  Scriptures,  rightly  read,  withdraw  their 
contribution. 

More  reluctantly  but  under  equal  necessity,  the- 
ology begins  to  see  that  Genesis  withdraws  its 
contribution  concerning  the  origin  of  human  sin. 
The  impossibility  of  maintaining  the  historical 
character  of  the  narrative  is  enough,  for  we  are 
under  the  vow  of  honesty  to  use  the  Scriptures  for 
what  they  are.  We  have  no  historical  narrative  of 
the  beginning  of  sin,  and  theology  receives  from  the 


00  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

Scriptures  no  record  of  that  beginning.  It  is  not 
enough  that  we  admit  this  as  a  fact,  we  must  use  it  as 
a  fact ;  and  that  means  that  theology  must  account 
for  sin,  if  at  all,  without  the  aid  of  such  a  narrative. 
Here  is  another  case  of  testimony  withdrawn. 

If  theology  is  left  in  this  position,  it  will  be  just 
where  the  Master  left  it.  He  bore  no  testimony  as 
to  the  manner  of  creation  or  the  age  of  the  world 
and  man,  and  we  cannot  imagine  that  these  ques- 
tions could  have  any  bearing,  near  or  remote,  upon 
the  substance  of  his  supreme  revelation.  Nor  did 
he  ever  refer,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  the  origin  of 
human  sin  ;  and  though  distinct  belief  on  that  sub- 
ject has  long  been  accounted  part  of  loyalty  to  him, 
lie  never  called  it  so.  1  Ie  found  God,  humanity, 
and  sin  all  in  existence,  and  proceeded  to  utter 
supreme  truth  about  them.  Theology  may  well 
be  content  to  stand  with  the  Master,  receiving  and 
passing  on  his  testimony  concerning  things  as  they 
are,  and  convinced  that  no  knowledge  or  theory  of 
origins,  however  valuable  it  might  be,  is  essential 
to  the  significance  of  his  message. 

These  negative  results  reached  by  the  withdrawal 
of  testimony  stand  by  themselves.  We  come  now 
to  the  comparing  of  the  Christian  and  non-Chris- 
tian elements  in  the  Scriptures. 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  91 

Here  questions  throng.  Is  the  Christian  ele- 
ment all  in  the  New  Testament  ?  or  have  we  some 
Christian  thought  from  pre-Christian  times  ?  What 
is  there  in  the  Old  Testament  that  is  spiritually  one 
with  the  message  of  Christ,  and  what  do  we  find 
there  that  once  seemed  true  but  cannot  be  true  if 
Christ  is  the  truth  ?  We  are  required  to  draw  this 
line  through  the  ancient  writings,  and  use  for  the- 
ology only  what  lies  on  one  side  of  it,  and  remand 
to  history  what  lies  on  the  other.  Similar  questions 
arise  concerning  the  New  Testament.  The  New 
Testament  is  the  great  Christian  book,  and  gives 
to  theology  abundance  of  Christian  material  in 
addition  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  most  useful  in  fill- 
ing out  our  understanding  of  his  gift.  Is  it  all  of 
this  kind  ?  Does  it  contain  any  thought  that  origi- 
nated in  non-Christian  sources  or  survived  not 
wholly  Christianized  from  pre-Christian  times? 
Have  we  here  any  non -Christian  Jewish  remain- 
ders ?  Is  there  anything  here  that  represents  God 
in  his  relations  with  men  in  ways  inconsistent 
with  the  testimony  of  Christ?  If  any  such  matter 
is  here,  it  must  be  distinguished  from  the  Christian 
element  and  used  only  for  historical  purposes,  while 
theology  receives  the  Christian  part. 

All   students  are   familiar  with  the   difference 


92  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

between  theology  and  the  history  of  theology. 
Theology  includes  what  is  held  to  be  true,  and 
the  history  of  theology  includes  what  has  been 
held  to  be  true,  on  the  subjects  involved,  —  a 
difference  deep  and  wide.  In  the  history  of 
theology  is  included,  for  example,  the  ancient 
doctrine  that  in  the  atonement  of  Christ  an  of- 
fering was  made  to  the  devil  for  the  deliverance 
of  men  from  his  dominion.  That  doctrine  is  deeply 
interesting  in  the  history  of  theology,  but  no  one 
dreams  that  it  now  has  the  slightest  claim  to  a 
place  in  theology  itself.  Other  doctrines  have 
had  their  day  and  ceased  to  be.  The  doctrine  of 
the  atonement  itself  has  passed  through  various 
forms  that  cannot  all  be  right  since  they  are 
inconsistent  one  with  another,  and  some  of  which 
cannot  be  right  if  Jesus  was  right  in  his  view  of 
God.  So  with  other  topics.  Some  of  these  forms 
of  doctrine  are  dead,  others  still  live :  some  are  in 
the  history  of  theology,  and  some  in  present  the- 
ology itself.  AVc  know  how  to  distinguish  the 
two  groups.  Now  our  principle  requires  that 
what  we  do  outside  the  Bible  we  do  within  the 
1  >il,le  also.  In  biblical  thought  that  is  pre- 
Christian  or  non-Christian  we  have  profound 
historical  and  religious  interest,  for  it  is  part  of 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  93 

the  religious  history  that  is  associated  with  Jesus 
Christ ;  but  while  we  study  it  in  the  history  of 
theology  we  do  not  receive  it  into  theology  now 
if  it  represents  God  as  Christ  does  not.  From 
this  process  two  results  will  follow.  Theology 
will  pass  some  biblical  material  by,  and  theology 
will  cancel  some  paragraphs  that  have  long  stood 
upon  its  pages.  Both  from  accepted  theology  and 
from  the  Bible  itself  the  gospel  of  Christ  sends 
some  matters  into  retirement. 

This  is  no  radical  or  new  proposal.  We  are  all 
perfectly  familiar  with  the  operation  of  it,  and  are 
thankful  for  the  results. 

There  is  a  great  word  in  the  New  Testament 
that  lies  at  the  very  heart  of  the  Christian  mes- 
sage :  —  "  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship 
him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  truth."  The 
thought  was  not  unknown  before  Christ,  or  beyond 
the  Hebrew  world,  but  it  is  rightly  esteemed  a 
characteristic  thought  of  Christianity,  and  a  final 
word  concerning  God  and  his  relations  with  men. 
There  it  stands  forever,  a  revelation  of  that  which 
is.  But  we  must  not  fail  to  notice  how  much 
this  great  word  consigns  to  the  fate  of  things 
abandoned.  First  it  antiquates  at  once  all  those 
naive  anthropomorphisms  which  represented  the 


94  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

simple  unchastened  conceptions  of  God  that  sat- 
isfied earlier  man.  Early  religion  was  full  of 
physical  picturings  of  God,  presenting  him  in 
terms  of  appeal  to  the  human  senses.  These  were 
present  in  the  Old  Testament,  never  forming  the 
whole  conception  of  God,  but  keeping  the  con- 
ception low,  even  while  on  the  lower  plane  they 
were  helpful  to  it.  The  great  Christian  word 
silently  abolishes  the  anthropomorphic  limitations, 
sets  God  forth  solely  as  a  Spirit,  and  opens  the 
way  to  the  highest  spiritual  relation  between  him 
and  men. 

But  this  great  word  relegates  from  theology  to 
history  much  more  than  the  ancient  pictorialisms, 
the  eye,  the  arm,  the  face,  the  throne,  of  God.  As 
the  context  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  suggests,  it 
retires  the  whole  idea  of  the  special  localizing  of 
worship.  Since  God  is  a  Spirit,  to  be  worshipped 
in  spirit  and  truth,  it  follows  that  "neither  in  this 
mountain  nor  yet  in  Jerusalem"  shall  men  wor- 
ship the  Father,  in  that  hour  which  "  is  now  come." 
Now  on  the  pages  of  the  Bible  the  localizing  of 
worship  is  as  old  as  the  story  of  Cain  and  Abel. 
It  runs  through  the  life  of  the  patriarchs.  It  is 
the  burden  of  the  history  of  worship  in  tabernacle 
and  temple.     It  is  the  secret  of  the  significance  of 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  95 

Jerusalem.  It  makes  the  very  substance  of  the 
appeal  of  Deuteronomy.  It  inspires  the  fine  feel- 
ing of  some  of  the  sweetest  Psalms.  That  God 
has  dwelling-places,  and  then  a  dwelling-place,  is 
a  central  conviction  of  the  people's  religion  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Only  a  few  of  the  prophets 
clearly  rise  above  it.  Thus  localized  worship  is 
taught  within  the  Bible,  and  urged,  and  strenu- 
ously required  in  the  name  of  God.  One  who 
reads  the  Bible  through  finds  far  more  demands 
for  it  than  rejections  of  it.  Nevertheless  it  has 
no  place  in  theology  now,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  Christ  taught  us  better  when  he  showed 
that  God  is  a  Spirit,  to  be  found  and  worshipped 
wherever  a  soul  looks  to  him  in  spirit  and  truth. 
The  God  whom  we  know  in  Christ  is  not  a  God 
of  sacred  places. 

This  well-known  retiring  of  a  biblical  idea  ought 
to  teach  us  its  wholesome  and  cheering  lesson. 
We  see  Jesus  Christ  in  the  very  act  of  driving 
inferior  conceptions  out  of  theology  into  the  his- 
tory of  theology,  and  we  thank  God  for  the  whole- 
some change  that  he  has  wrought.  Then  let 
us  admit  that  the  process  is  a  sound  one,  and  take 
to  heart  the  fact  that  every  true  thought  concern- 
ing God  sends  some  false  one  into  the  background. 


96  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

Let  us  not  fear  to  inquire  where  the  line  runs 
through  the  Bible,  to  separate  the  antiquated 
from  the  ever-living.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews, 
speaking  of  matter  that  lies  within  his  Bible  and 
ours,  says,  "  Now  that  which  is  becoming  old  and 
waxing  aged  is  nigh  unto  vanishing  away."  Let 
it  vanish,  and  let  us  not  fail  to  discover  when  it 
has  vanished,  that  we  may  rejoice  the  more  in  the 
everlastingness  of  that  which  cannot  be  removed. 

There  is  another  instance  of  elimination  of 
biblical  material,  equally  illuminating  with  this. 
In  the  New  Testament  much  prominence  is  given 
to  questions  about  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the  privi- 
leges of  the  one  and  the  unprivileged  condition 
of  the  other,  and  the  relations  of  the  two  to 
salvation  by  Christ.  The  issue  was  raised,  we 
know,  in  view  of  relations  that  are  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament  It  was  a  biblical  question, 
and  in  Paul's  day  it  was  a  practical  question,  with 
the  echoes  of  which  the  New  Testament  rings. 
Yet  here  is  a  vital  question  in  the  history  of  the- 
ology and  in  the  Bible,  which  is  no  question  at  all, 
or  even  a  topic,  in  theology  now.  Paul  uttered 
the  great  Christian  word  about  it  when  he  said, 
44  Is  God  the  God  of  Jews  only  ?  is  he  not  the 
God  of  Gentiles  also?  Yea,  of  Gentiles  also,  if 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  97 

so  be  that  God  is  one."  One  God,  one  relation 
of  men  to  God,  —  that  was  Paul's  Christian  de- 
cision. It  was  a  straight  inference  from  Christ's 
view  of  God,  and  when  once  it  was  accepted  the 
controversy  was  dead.  Dead  it  is.  No  theology 
now  needs  a  section  on  circumcision  and  un cir- 
cumcision, or  the  free  access  of  Gentiles  to  God 
in  Christ.  Though  the  topic  is  embedded  in  the 
New  Testament,  written  there  as  a  vital  part  of 
the  Christian  gospel,  it  is  now  an  element  in 
history  alone,  never  more  in  theology  at  all. 
Paul  drove  it  out  by  the  very  process  that  I  am 
advocating  now,  —  by  showing  what  the  Christian 
verity  concerning  God  implied  upon  the  subject. 

We  may  follow  Paul's  example  in  dealing  with 
a  kindred  question  not  unknown  in  theology, — 
the  way  of  salvation  in  the  Old  Testament  times. 
If  we  hold  to  the  idea  of  God  that  Christ  has 
given  us,  we  cannot  possibly  admit  to  our  the- 
ology any  idea  that  he,  who  is  ever  the  same, 
proposed  to  accept  and  save  men  in  one  period 
on  the  principle  of  law  and  works  and  in  another 
on  the  principle  of  grace  and  faith.  Nor  can  we 
admit  any  doctrine  that  comes  by  way  of  inference 
from  such  a  thought,  implying  it  as  true.  That 
the  God  of  grace  was   ever  in  his  saving  of  men 

7 


98  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN"   THEOLOGY 

the  God  of  legalism  is  absolutely  inconsistent 
with  the  Christian  revelation.  The  one  God  who 
18  the  same  to  all  men  is  the  same  in  all  periods. 
Though  men  may  have  misjudged  him  and  seemed 
to  see  him  in  two  characters,  he  changes  never, 
and  his  principle  in  accepting  men  to  salvation 
is  as  unalterable  as  himself.  To  say  this  is  only 
to  say  that  Christ  has  shown  the  living  God  as 
he  really  is.  I  do  not  say  that  the  Old  Testament 
really  represents  him  as  in  its  time  a  God  of  legal- 
ism. Rightly  read,  as  we  may  now  read  it,  I 
judge  that  it  does  not.  But  it  has  often  been 
written  into  theology  that  it  does  represent  him 
so,  and  it  has  been  added  that  the  Christian  apostle 
Paul  represents  him  as  having  two  methods  of 
salvation,  the  earlier  legal  and  the  later  gracious. 
"Whether  Paul  does  so  represent  him  is  a  question 
for  evidence.  But  whoever  may  have  conceived 
the  Christian  God  as  a  God  whose  acceptance  was 
formerly  earned  by  meritorious  works,  it  cannot 
be  true,  and  the  thought  is  one  that  the  Christian 
message  now  forbids  us  to  entertain.  Earlier  men 
may  have  thought  otherwise,  but  we  know  in 
Christ  that  the  only  God  always  accepts  men  to  sal- 
vation by  the  free  grace  of  his  own  heart,  and  not 
on  grounds  of  merit.    Therefore  all  discussions  that 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  99 

assume  a  legal  method  of  salvation  once  in  use  by 
him  must  drop  out  of  theology,  and  all  inferences 
from  such  a  view  of  God  must  go  with  them. 
Whatever  such  omission  would  cancel  from  the- 
ology it  is  our  high  privilege  to  eliminate.  Under 
this  influence,  driven  out  because  it  is  not  one 
with  Christ's  gospel  of  free  grace,  the  doctrine 
that  God  saves  men  by  imputing  to  them  merit 
which  he  has  provided  for  them  in  Christ  will 
retire  into  history,  leaving  theology  to  be  domi- 
nated by  the  Christian  element  in  the  Scriptures. 
This  doctrine  of  imputation  is  venerable  in  Chris- 
tian history,  but  it  has  its  roots  in  a  conception 
of  God  which  Christianity  condemns  and  super- 
sedes, and  therefore  it  has  no  place  in  Christian 
theology.  The  gospel  of  Christ  is  far  better  than 
the  legalism  which  theology  even  yet  has  scarcely 
learned  to  leave  behind. 

In  the  same  direction  the  revelation  of  Christ 
leads  us  farther.  Both  the  legalistic  view  and 
the  localizing  of  worship  have  given  sanction  to 
the  idea  that  God  holds  himself  aloof  from  sin- 
ful men,  and  keeps  them  at  a  distance.  For  this 
idea,  long  influential  in  theology,  the  Bible  has 
constantly  been  held  to  be  authority.  So  it  is, 
if  we  take  it  all  as  we  find  it  and  are  bound  by 


100         THE   SCRIPTURES   IX  THEOLOGY 

it  as  it  reads.  If  Solomon's  temple  pictures  divine 
realities  and  relations  as  they  are,  then  God  dwells 
apart  from  men  though  manifested  among  them, 
shut  in,  as  it  were,  in  a  secret  chamber,  and  sin- 
ners are  held  away  from  approach  to  him  by  a 
succession  of  sanctities,  while  they  are  repre- 
sented before  him  by  a  series  of  indispensable 
propitiations.  The  tabernacle,  the  temple,  the 
Jewish  legal  system,  all  proclaim  the  withdrawal 
of  God,  the  separateness  of  the  Holy,  the  inac- 
cessibleness  of  the  divine  to  the  sinful.  The 
developed  system  of  sacrifice  in  later  Judaism 
gave  strong  emphasis  to  the  same  idea.  Now, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  men  thought  thus  of 
God.  'Hie  idea  is  very  ancient  and  widespread. 
It  was  built  into  many  of  those  Gentile  temples 
after  which  we  now  know  that  the  temple  of 
Solomon  was  patterned.  The  idea  was  reinforced 
by  moral  considerations,  for  when  once  God  was 
known  as  pure  and  demanding  purity,  all  the 
stronger  wrould  be  the  conviction  that  he  must 
withdraw  himself  from  the  sinful.  When  his 
will  was  expressed  in  a  law  of  commandments, 
then  such  a  law  must  form  a  hedge  about  his 
presence.  Surely,  it  was  thought,  in  his  holiness 
he  could  be  approached  by  shiners  only  with  pro- 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  101 

pitiations,  whereby  his  wrath  might  be  averted 
and  his  favor  won.  This  is  a  perfectly  natural 
view  for  sinful  men  to  take  of  their  relation  to 
God,  for  the  one  thing  certain  about  sinful  men 
is  that  they  will  misunderstand  and  misjudge 
God.  But  we  know  at  present  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely a  non-Christian  idea.  It  lacks  the  very 
element  that  Jesus  brought  in.  He  had  no  place 
for  the  idea  that  God  holds  himself  aloof  from 
the  sinful:  he  taught  that  God's  feeling  toward 
the  sinful  was  the  same  as  his  own,  expressed 
in  coming  forth  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which 
was  lost.  He  never  taught  or  gave  a  hint  that 
God's  favor  needs  to  be  won,  or  his  wrath  averted, 
by  sacrifice  or  propitiation:  on  the  contrary,  he 
made  men  know  that  God  is  always  waiting 
the  opportunity  for  free  exercise  of  his  grace. 
According  to  him  the  only  barrier  between  God 
and  men  is  the  sinfulness  of  men  which  keeps 
them  away  from  him.  The  holiness  of  God  is 
manifested  in  the  fact  that  sinfulness  is  a  barrier, 
and  in  the  eager  desire  of  God  for  the  removing 
of  the  barrier  and  the  bringing  of  men  to  his  holy 
fellowship.  This  is  the  Christian  light  upon  God, 
given  nowhere  else.  No  other  religion  has  it.  In 
the  Old  Testament  there  are  gleams  of   it,  still 


■ 


102  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

dimmed  by  the  clouds  of  altar-sacrifice,  but  in 
its  fulness  it  shines  onlv  in  Jesus  Christ.  This 
central  truth,  that  God  is  truly  revealed  in  the 
seeking  and  saving  love  of  Christ,  not  only  enters 
into  Christian  theology,  but  constitutes  its  very 
heart.  Kindred  conclusions  from  it  must  have 
place  in  theology,  but  all  that  represents  God 
in  a  manner  inconsistent  with  it  must  be  ban- 
ished without  regret.  The  ancient  word  propi- 
tiation must  not  come  into  theology  in  senses 
that  correspond  to  the  old  non-Christian  thought 
of  God.  If  it  comes  at  all,  it  must  enter  as  it 
enters  the  New  Testament,  where  all  the  propi- 
tiation that  is  mentioned  is  said  to  be  provided 
by  God  himself.  God,  the  free  and  ready  source 
of   grace   that  s,  —  this    is   Christianity,    and 

to  this  our  Christian  theology  must  be  made  to 
correspond. 

We  may  look  at  another  illustration.  The  field 
of  eschatology,  so  far  as  this  world  is  concerned, 
will  be  entirely  cleared  by  the  application  of  our 
principle.  Here  the  decisive  influence  has  always 
been  a  non-Christian  element. 

When  the  Messiah  should  come,  what  was  he 
expected  to  do  ?  Hopes  in  Israel  varied,  but 
not  widely.      He  was  to  establish  a  kingdom  in 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  103 

Israel,  and  reign  over  the  chosen  people,  and 
make  Israel  rule  over  the  nations.  The  ancient 
kingdom  of  David,  sacred  and  glorious  in  national 
memory,  was  the  type  which  he  would  fulfil  and 
glorify.  Israelites  of  past  ages  would  be  raised 
from  the  dead  to  share  in  the  glory  of  his  king- 
dom. The  living  Israel  would  be  purified  from 
sin  that  it  might  reign  with  him,  and  would  enter 
the  kingdom  through  the  ordeal  of  a  judgment. 
Thus  the  chosen  people  would  be  glorified  with 
the  Messiah  in  his  kingdom  at  Jerusalem,  while 
the  nations  would  either  be  blessed  in  his  reign 
or  be  punished  for  their  hatred  of  Israel.  This, 
with  variations,  was  the  hope. 

Jesus  appeared,  and  was  rejected  by  the  nation 
in  general,  but  by  a  minority  was  welcomed  as 
the  Messiah.  When  he  had  gone,  the  Messiah, 
as  these  believed,  had  been  among  them.  And 
what  had  he  done?  He  founded  no  kingdom  in 
his  lifetime,  nor  took  any  step  in  that  direction, 
beyond  the  claim  that  was  implied  in  his  final 
entrance  to  Jerusalem.  At  the  hands  of  Israel 
the  Messiah  died.  But  death  was  followed  by 
resurrection,  and  soon  he  was  gone  from  the 
earth  and  was  exerting  spiritual  power  upon 
men  from  the  heavenly  world.     A  church  sprang 


104         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

up  in  his  name,  which  started  within  the  Jewish 
circle  but  soon  went  abroad  among  the  nations, 
where  alone,  and  not  among  the  people  of  the 
Messiah,  it  was  permanently  established.  He 
was  as  far  as  possible  from  fulfilling  the  sacred 
expectations  about  the  Christ,  and  yet,  in  the 
sure  conviction  of  his  early  followers,  he  was  the 
Christ.  Surely,  then,  the  expectations  would  yet 
be  realized:  fulfilment  was  only  delayed.  He 
had  gone  from  the  world  in  which  he  was  to 
reign,  but  the  heavens  could  not  retain  him :  he 
would  quickly  return,  the  dead  would  be  raised, 
the  judgment  would  be  held,  the  kingdom  would 
be  established,  and  the  Messiah  would  reign  in 
majesty  on  the  earth.  This  Christian  rendering 
of  the  Jewish  expectation  took  powerful  hold 
upon  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  was  passed  on 
by  them  to  the  Gentiles  who  believed,  and  formed 
a  mighty  inspiration  in  the  life  of  the  early 
church. 

But  the  expectation  was  not  realized.  The 
Messiah  did  not  return  in  glory.  A  wholly  differ- 
ent course  of  events  unfolded.  A  spiritual  work 
was  done,  and  it  was  a  work  that  formed  a  true 
continuation  of  what  Jesus  had  done  in  life  and 
death,   a  genuine    development    from   his  actual 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  105 

mission.  There  came  new  holiness  and  fellowship 
with  God,  new  love  and  fellowship  with  men,  new 
hope  of  immortality.  There  came  a  living  and 
growing  church  on  earth.  This  was  what  Jesus 
had  introduced.  The  Christ  who  lived  brought  in 
a  future  like  himself.  Though  the  advent-hope 
continued,  there  came  no  realization  whatever  of 
that  hope  or  any  of  its  elements.  The  movement 
of  history  followed  according  to  the  influence  of 
the  Christ  who  came,  not  according  to  the  hopes 
of  those  who  pictured  him  beforehand. 

How  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  From  what  should 
a  movement  of  history  come  forth  ?  from  what  was 
expected  to  occur,  or  from  what  had  occurred? 
Expectations  do  not  determine  what  history  shall 
be :  facts  and  working  influences  do  that.  The 
Jesus  who  lived  and  died  was  the  one  from  whom 
the  Christian  development  took  its  character,  not 
the  Davidic  king  long  hoped  for  but  never  born. 
The  history  that  followed  Christ  has  been  Chris- 
tian, imperfectly  of  course  but  really :  it  would 
have  been  Jewish,  not  Christian,  if  the  ancient 
hope  had  been  realized.  In  other  words,  the  ful- 
filment of  the  pre-Christian  advent-hope  ought 
not  to  have  come,  and  could  not  come.  Now  that 
we  are  far  enough  away  to  look  at  it,  we  can  see 


106         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

that  the  advent-hope  was  part  and  parcel  of  Juda- 
ism, and  no  part  of  the  gift  of  Christ  at  all.  It 
came  most  naturally  into  the  early  Christian  life, 
seeing  that  the  first  disciples  did  not  understand 
the  Master  very  well,  and  it  was  natural  that  for 
a  time  it  should  remain  a  living  hope.  But  it  was 
never  anything  else  than  a  Jewish  remainder,  a 
survival,  an  intrusion  of  something  incongruous 
into  the  Christian  field. 

The  advent-hope  had  its  usefulness  for  the  early 
Christians,  for  after  Jesus  the  real  Christ  had  lived 
and  been  loved,  and  died  and  been  glorified,  the 
hope  of  seeing  him  again  had  a  quality  that  no 
Jewish  expectation  could  ever  possess.  Christian 
faith,  hope,  and  love  all  entered  glowingly  into  the 
looking  for  his  return.  So  the  hope  kept  the 
image  of  the  unseen  Saviour  vividly  present  to 
the  church,  and  brightened  dark  days  with  a 
heavenly  light.  Nevertheless  Christ  himself  had 
doomed  it  to  disappointment  by  being  what  he 
was.  The  real  Messiah  had  started  history  in 
another  direction,  and  the  visible  return  to  Mes- 
sianic glory  on  earth  was  no  item  in  the  develop- 
ment that  came  forth  from  him. 

Consequently  the  advent-hope  ought  to  have 
been  dropped  out  of  Christianity,  when  time  had 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  107 

refuted  it  and  experience  had  shown  the  kingdom 
coming  in  another  way.  It  was  discredited  long 
before  the  New  Testament  was  complete,  for  it 
was  never  anything  but  hope  of  an  event  close  at 
hand.  The  Scriptures  know  absolutely  nothing 
of  a  return  of  Christ  after  two  thousand  years. 
But  it  has  had  a  different  fate,  full  of  pathetic 
interest.  It  was  taken  to  be  a  part  of  Christianity 
itself.  Was  it  not  a  part  of  early  Christian  life  ? 
Did  not  the  apostles  cherish  it  ?  —  and  they  could 
not  be  mistaken.  Does  it  not  glow  on  the  pages 
of  the  Bible?  Still  therefore  the  expected  event 
was  thought  to  be  only  delayed,  and  so  the  millen- 
nial conception  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  vivid 
advent-hope,  have  survived  until  this  day,  side  by 
side  with  that  spiritual  experience  which  has  borne 
agelong  testimony  that  the  real  Christ  is  working 
on  another  plan. 

This  discredited  hope  of  a  soon-returning  Christ 
and  a  visible  kingdom  has  long  been  kept  alive  in 
perpetual  disappointment  by  the  accepted  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures.  But  the  sound  historical  inter- 
pretation which  is  now  possible  assigns  to  it  no 
place  at  all  in  the  gift  and  revelation  of  Christ, 
and  therefore  our  principle  requires  us  to  drop  it 
and  all  that  belongs  to  it  out  of  our  Christian 


108         THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

theology.  Visible  advent,  simultaneous  resurrec- 
tion, assemblage  of  all  men  for  judgment,  millen- 
nial reign  of  Christ  on  earth,  —  all  is  Jewish 
survival,  historically  discredited  by  the  work  of 
Christ  himself :  it  is  a  remainder  from  pre-Christian 
life  and  hope,  demonstrated  to  be  non-Christian  by 
the  different  course  of  Christian  history ;  wherefore 
it  forms  no  part  of  Christian  theology.  Under  the 
wholesome  influence  of  our  principle  this  whole 
group  of  topics  will  disappear,  and  the  Christianity 
that  proceeded  from  the  actual  work  of  Christ  will 
stand  delivered  from  the  contradictory  conception 
that  has  been  bound  in  with  it  through  all  these 
ages. 

I  am  not  overlooking  the  important  question 
that  has  already  been  suggested  to  every  listener. 
Everyone  remembers  that  the  advent-expectation 
can  be  quoted  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self. There  stands  the  great  apocalyptic  passage 
in  the  twenty -fourth  chapter  of  Matthew's  Gos- 
pel, with  other  sayings  of  similar  effect,  pictur- 
ing the  coming  kingdom  in  the  common  manner  of 
Jewish  hope,  and  announcing  the  visible  advent  of 
the  Messiah  as  close  at  hand.  How  can  one  say 
the  adventrhope  is  not  Christian  when  it  has 
this  endorsement?     Is  there  then  a  non-Christian 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  109 

element  in  the  words  of  Christ  himself?  Had  he 
too  his  ideas  inherited  from  an  expiring  age,  exist- 
ing side  by  side  with  his  vision  of  eternal  truth  ? 
Did  he  conceive  the  coming  kingdom  in  the  mis- 
taken manner  of  the  time  ?  or  are  the  words  of  ex- 
pectation that  never  came  true  attributed  to  him 
by  others,  and  not  his  own? 

As  to  the  interpretation  of  these  sayings,  we 
must  judge  between  two  ways.  One  is  that 
while  his  conception  of  the  spiritual  character  of 
the  coming  kingdom  rose  immeasurably  above  the 
thought  of  the  time,  and  was  a  Saviour's  own 
conception,  he  still  conceived  the  time  and  form 
of  the  kingdom  in  the  manner  which  the  past 
had  consecrated.  The  other  is  that  the  collectors 
of  the  synoptic  record,  preserving  the  tradition  of 
the  church,  gathered  in  with  his  words  some  that 
were  not  his,  and  so  attributed  to  him  the  ac- 
cepted view  of  the  kingdom,  which  they  had  no 
doubt  that  he  entertained.  Probably  there  is  no 
third  interpretation.  The  time  has  not  yet  come 
for  general  agreement  here,  but  the  question  has 
arisen  in  the  course  of  candid  study,  and  is  des- 
tined to  remain  long  in  discussion.  Therefore  let 
the  discussion  be  open  and  without  reproach. 
Many  persons  feel  it  necessary  to  hold  that  Jesus 


110         THE   SCRIPTURES  IX  THEOLOGY 

spoke  the  words,  in  order  to  preserve  the  credit 
of  the  evangelists  and  the  accuracy  of  the  record, 
lest  we  should  lose  our  sense  of  certainty  as  to 
what  he  said  and  did.  This  is  the  popular  feel- 
ing. Others  feel  it  necessary  to  hold  that  he 
did  not  speak  the  words,  in  order  to  preserve 
the  spiritual  sanity  and  consistency  of  our  Lord 
himself,  and  avoid  the  conclusion  that  he  mis- 
conceived the  nature  of  his  own  work  and  kingdom, 
—  an  object  quite  as  important,  one  would  think, 
as  the  maintaining  of  the  credit  of  the  evangelists. 
Others  again,  disclaiming  any  object  except  to  read 
his  life  as  they  find  it,  think  the  evidence  shows 
that  he  spoke  the  words,  or  at  least  some  of  them, 
and  further,  that  he  conceived  the  kingdom  in  the 
manner  of  the  Old  Testament,  though  with  vast 
heightening  of  its  spiritual  character.  Some  of 
these,  with  deepest  reverence  toward  him,  regard 
the  retention  of  the  old  idea  as  an  unimportant  ele- 
ment in  the  life  of  him  who  was  bearing  to  the 
world  the  everlasting  message.  These  are  not  sur- 
prised if  the  messenger  of  God  in  the  limitations  of 
humanity  thought  in  the  manner  of  his  time.  They 
ask  how  he  could  have  addressed  his  own  genera- 
tion if  he  had  not.  What  he  lived  for,  they  would 
say,  was  not  to  show  at  once,  or  even  to  see  at 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  111 

once,  all  truth  that  was  involved  in  his  mission, 
but  to  reveal  that  central  truth  and  eternal  life  in 
which  the  true  kingdom  in  its  own  time  would 
consist.  They  see  so  clearly  the  revealing  and 
redeeming  glory  of  Jesus  Christ  as  not  to  be 
troubled  by  this  limitation  upon  his  foresight.  So 
these  interpreters,  though  they  find  the  advent- 
hope  expressed  in  genuine  words  of  Jesus,  would 
agree  with  me  in  judging  it  to  be  no  part  of  his 
gift  to  the  world. 

It  is  possible  that  with  these  last  the  future 
Christian  faith  will  more  and  more  agree.  The 
synoptical  Gospels,  it  is  true,  are  not  that  precise 
transcript  of  Jesus'  life  that  they  were  once 
thought  to  be:  they  embody  the  church's  chief 
remembrances  of  him,  preserved  in  various  ways, 
and  nowhere  attested  as  faultless  remembrances. 
But  exegesis  is  growing  united  in  affirming  that 
the  expectation  of  an  early  return  in  his  kingdom 
cannot  fairly  be  eliminated  from  the  words  of  Je- 
sus; and  yet  the  fact  stands  plain  as  the  sun  in 
the  heavens  that  his  life  and  death  led  out  by  their 
character  into  a  different  development,  in  which 
an  early  return  had  no  place  or  possibility.  With 
these  facts  theology  has  to  deal,  and  one  should 
judge  only  with  reverent  diffidence  and  patience. 


112         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

When  theology  has  well  distinguished  the  perma- 
nent gift  of  Christ  from  everything  else,  two  re- 
sults will  follow:  the  Christian  gift  will  shine 
more  brightly  than  ever  in  a  glory  of  its  own,  and 
the  other  elements  in  Scripture  will  be  more  justly 
estimated.  To  understand  Christ  more  truly  will 
not  be  altogether  to  despise  these  more.  Our  pres- 
ent judgments  of  the  non-Christian  elements  are 
very  rough  and  poor,  for  want  of  clear  vision  of 
what  is  truly  Christian.  What  we  call  Jewish 
hopes  are  not  for  us  to  cherish,  but  they  were  not 
all  gross  and  unworthy  in  their  time.  Much  that 
was  never  Christian  had  a  genuine  value  in  its  own 
day,  and  was  not  unworthy  of  the  noblest  minds. 
It  may  be  that  Christians  of  a  later  and  riper  time 
will  not  wonder  or  be  grieved  that  the  Christ 
whom  they  adore  and  love  saw  partly  with  the 
eyes  of  his  age,  when  they  perceive  how  much  it 
means  that  he  revealed  the  highest  things  in  the 
very  light  of  heaven,  and  made  to  dawn  upon  this 
world  the  glory  of  the  living  God. 

The  story  of  the  advent-hope  teaches  us  one 
large  lesson.  That  hope  is  found  in  the  New 
Testament:  then  the  pre-Christian  matter  within 
the  Bible  is  not  all  found  in  the  pre-Christian 
writings.      It  has   been  commonly  assumed   that 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  113 

everything  in  the  New  Testament  belongs  most 
completely  to  the  Christian  period,  and  is  entirely 
expressive  of  the  mind  of  Christ.  It  is  on  this 
hypothesis  that  theology  has  usually  been  con- 
structed. But  here  is  a  revolutionary  light.  In 
the  advent-hope  we  find  a  group  of  pre-Christian 
conceptions  so  wrought  in  with  the  Christian 
realities  as  actually  to  be  taken  for  a  part  of  them, 
even  until  now.  They  were  thoroughly  charac- 
teristic of  the  life  of  early  Christianity,  holding 
possession  not  only  of  the  common  people  but  of 
the  loftiest  minds.  They  appear  in  Paul,  most  viv- 
idly in  his  earlier  writings.  In  the  Johannine 
writings  they  have  almost  disappeared,  leaving 
traces  only  here  and  there  ;  but  elsewhere  they  are 
present  with  all  the  power  of  living  convictions. 
It  is  easy  to  account  for  their  presence :  their  pres- 
ence itself  is  what  theology  needs  to  consider  but 
has  never  yet  admitted  to  its  proper  influence. 
A  distinctly  Jewish  hope,  opposite  in  effect  to  the 
character  of  Christ's  actual  working,  and  pro- 
gressively discredited  by  every  day  of  continued 
life,  stands  expressed  as  a  living  hope  within  that 
New  Testament  which  is  our  primary  Christian 
document. 

This   fact    gives    light,   but    the   light    reveals 

8 


314         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

conditions  that  ought  to  relieve  our  difficulty. 
The  natural  and  inevitable  had  happened.  New 
ideas  never  come  into  a  vacant  mind:  there  is 
always  something  there  already.  New  ideas  come 
into  the  midst  of  old  ones,  and  the  new  and  the 
old  proceed  to  exist  together.  Old  ideas  have  the 
advantage  of  possession,  and  do  not  immediately 
retire.  They  stay  long  after  they  have  had 
time  to  go,  long  after  they  have  encountered 
thoughts  that  ought  to  banish  them,  and  long 
after  their  possessor  may  suppose  that  they  have 
gone.  Old  and  new  exist  in  unstable  equilibrium. 
Probably  every  one  of  us  to-day  is  entertaining 
ideas  that  ought  long  ago  to  have  been  banished 
by  other  and  better  ideas  existing  in  the  same 
mind  with  them. 

This,  which  is  the  only  thing  that  can  occur 
when  new  thoughts  enter,  is  just  what  did  occur 
in  the  case  of  the  early  Christians,  including  the 
men  who  wrote  the  New  Testament.  We  can 
wateh  the  very  process.  We  see  the  Christian 
conceptions  work  with  power,  and  just  as  clearly 
do  we  see  the  operation  of  ancient  inherited  ideas 

I  habits  of  mind  inbred  by  national  training. 
Both  the  Christian  element  and  the  pre-Christian 
influences  lie  open  to  our  eyes  as  we  read  these 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  115 

precious  Christian  pages;  and  we  cannot  do  jus- 
tice either  to  the  New  Testament  or  to  the  gospel 
of  Christ  until  we  frankly  acknowledge  the  pres- 
ence of  both  and  distinguish  them  from  each  other. 
On  this  point  theology  has  not  become  con- 
sistent. On  the  one  hand  it  has  generally  been 
assumed  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
were  preserved  from  writing  anything  that  was 
not  perfectly  accordant  with  the  mind  of  Christ : 
hence  it  has  been  considered  wrong  to  suggest 
that  non-Christian  matter  could  be  found  upon 
their  pages.  Yet  on  the  other  hand  it  has  been 
recognized  that  each  writer  was  himself,  and 
showed  not  only  in  style  but  in  thought  the  ef- 
fects of  personal  experience  and  national  training. 
These  two  conditions  could  be  fulfilled  only  by 
perpetual  miracle,  and  to  the  perpetual  miracle  of 
inspiration  the  supposed  result  has  been  attributed. 
But  the  reading  of  the  New  Testament  with  open 
eyes  is  enough  to  show  that  such  a  miracle  has 
not  been  wrought.  The  process  natural  to  the 
human  mind  has  gone  on.  New  ideas  and  old 
have  existed  in  these  men's  minds,  Christian  and 
pre-Christian  side  by  side,  and  both  have  influ- 
enced the  written  page.  It  is  our  bounden  duty 
in  gathering  material  for  our  theology  to  recognize 


116  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

these  facts,  and  to  estimate  that  which  lies  be- 
fore us  in  the  light  of  its  actual  relation  to  the 
body  of  Christian  truth. 

The  writer  to  the  Hebrews,  we  know,  was  a 
man  of  Alexandrian  training,  who  viewed  the 
gospel  with  Alexandrian  eyes  and  used  the  Bible 
in  Alexandrian  methods.  He  allegorized ;  and 
his  practice,  being  found  within  the  field  of  in- 
spiration, has  often  been  taken  as  an  authorized 
example,  justifying  all  Christians  in  allegorical 
interpretation.  nut  we  know  better  now.  Al- 
legorizing is  distinctly  a  wrong  method  of  using 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  example  of  the  writer  to 
the  Hebrews  does  not  make  it  right.  The  same 
man  held  the  late  Platonic  idea  of  patterns  in  the 
invisible  world,  which  visible  things  have  been 
created  to  resemble ;  and  he  stated  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  by  Christ  partly  in  terms  of  that  idea. 
Commentators  and  theologians  have  often  sup- 
posed that  therefore  they  must  accept  the  idea  as 
true,  and  believe  writh  him  that  the  real  and  ef- 
fective sacrifice  of  Jesus  was  offered,  not  on 
the  cross,  but  after  his  ascension,  in  the  heavenly 
temple.  This  is  a  difficult  doctrine  to  assimilate 
into  the  gospel  of  the  New  Testament,  but  the 
task  has  been  attempted,  in  loyalty  to  the  Scrip- 


KESULTS   NEGATIVE  117 

tures.  But  we  have  learned  that  no  such  duty 
is  imposed  on  us.  With  his  training  and  for  his 
purpose  it  was  natural  for  this  nameless  writer 
to  present  the  matter  thus,  but  the  doctrine  of 
heavenly  patterns  has  long  ago  retired  into  the 
history  of  theology,  and  has  now  no  place  in 
theology  itself.  That  this  writer  understood  Christ 
better  because  he  conceived  him  thus,  or  made 
a  permanent  contribution  to  theology  thereby, 
probably  no  modern  theologian  believes.  Here  we 
find  ourselves  eliminating  from  theology  a  concep- 
tion that  is  recorded  with  glowing  confidence  on 
the  pages  of  the  Bible.  The  act  is  right,  and 
should  be  repeated  wherever  we  have  identified 
some  element  brought  in  from  beyond  the  Chris- 
tian source  and  not  of  the  spiritual  kindred  of  the 
mind  of  Christ. 

The  largest  question  concerning  elimination  of 
temporary  matter  concerns  the  contribution  made 
to  theology  by  the  apostle  Paul.  Paul  has  com- 
monly been  regarded  as  the  theologian  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  theology  has  judged  itself 
bound  to  adopt  all  of  his  thought  as  its  own. 
He  came  into  Christianity  from  a  thorough  train- 
ing in  pre-Christian,  non-Christian,  and  partly  anti- 
Christian  views  of  God  and  religion.     So  far  as 


118         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

concerns  the  principle  of  salvation,  he  received 
the  genuine  Christian  message  into  his  deepest 
heart,  and  probably  he  entered  into  the  real 
significance  of  the  gospel  more  profoundly  than 
any  of  the  original  disciples,  certainly  more  pro- 
foundly than  they  did  at  so  early  a  date.  lie 
served  as  the  chief  agent  in  leading  Christianity 
out  to  that  worldwide  operation  which  was  its 
proper  destiny.  His  Pharisaic  training  has  always 
been  considered  a  providential  asset  of  the  new 
faith,  since  it  stood  as  a  most  helpful  background 
against  which  the  doctrine  of  free  grace  might 
be  clearly  exhibited.  Yet  while  this  is  true,  it 
was  perfectly  inevitable  that  he  should  receive  the 
gospel  into  a  mind  in  which  existed  the  habits  of 
a  lifetime  and  the  ideas  which  had  been  formative 
of  earlier  belief.  It  is  also  true  that  much  of  his 
writing  was  colored  by  controversy  with  Judaism, 
and  many  of  his  terms  were  used  in  a  sense  and 
manner  dictated  b}r  the  usage  in  which  his  oppo- 
nents understood  them,  —  a  usage  determined,  of 
course,  by  other  influences  than  Christianity. 
That  every  thought  written  by  Paul  was  solely 
the  fruit  of  Christian  operation  in  his  mind,  unin- 
fluenced by  anything  else,  is  disprovable  by  study 
of  his  writings,  just  as  it  is  impossible  in  human 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  119 

nature.  I  should  be  glad  if  some  competent 
Christian  and  scholar  would  give  us  a  book  on 
"  The  Old  and  the  New  in  Paul."  He  grasped  the 
true  gospel,  and  uttered  it  forth  with  energy  un- 
surpassed. But  in  so  speaking  as  to  be  powerful 
in  his  own  time  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than 
use  forms  of  thought  that  were  then  alive  but  had 
no  hold  on  permanence.  He  was  compelled  to 
robe  the  Christian  truth  partly  in  inherited  gar- 
ments, which  might  not  become  it  best  through  all 
ages.  He  was  compelled  to  this  by  the  necessity 
of  being  understood  and  effective,  and  at  the  same 
time  it  was  inwardly  impossible  that  he  should 
do  otherwise.  His  pages  bear  the  record  of  some 
distinctly  Jewish  conceptions,  not  transformed 
by  Christianity.  So  there  are  in  Paul  both  old 
and  new.  The  new  is  entitled  to  outlive  the 
old,  but  theology  has  done  what  it  could  to 
keep  the  old  alive.  Theology  must  now  learn 
the  difference  between  the  two.  The  presence 
of  the  old  is  inevitable  in  nature:  the  presence 
of  the   new  is   the   gift   of   God. 

But  the  old  in  Paul,  if  it  is  found,  and  all  that 
has  come  into  his  writings  from  anywhere  else 
than  from  Christ,  is  to  be  judged.  It  may  be  of 
one  substance  with  Christ's  truth,  and  it  may  not. 


120         THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

Paul  used  some  analogies  from  Roman  law  for 
illustration  of  Christian  realities,  and  more  from 
Jewish  law  and  institutions.  I  have  heard  theo- 
logians maintain  that  we  must  hold  those  anal- 
ogies from  Roman  law,  and  the  Roman  law  itself, 
to  be  virtually  inspired  of  God  for  expression  of 
religious  truth,  because  Paul  used  them.  Con- 
cerning the  analogies  from  Jewish  law  and  insti- 
tutions the  same  assumption  is  most  familiar. 
But  it  will  not  stand.  The  points  used  for 
analogy  were  brought  in  from  outside  the  Chris- 
tian circle  of  ideas,  and  are  not  to  be  assumed 
to  be  points  of  Christian  truth.  Old-Testament 
matter  found  in  the  New  Testament  is  to  be  judged 
as  to  its  relation  to  the  Christian  element  just  as 
we  judge  it  in  the  Old  Testament.  Quoting  it 
lias  not  changed  it.  Using  it  for  illustration  of 
the  gospel  does  not  make  it  a  part  of  the  gospel, 
or  require  all  ages  to  think  in  terms  of  it.  So 
our  Lord  taught  us  when  he  disparaged  the 
Mosaic  law  of  divorce  as  ranging  on  a  lower 
plane  than  the  true  doctrine.  If  that  law  had 
been  cited  in  the  New  Testament,  or  somehow 
used  for  illustration,  it  would  not  thereby  be 
made  Christian,  but  would  still  have  to  be  esti- 
mated at  its  true  inferior  value.     And  we  cannot 


RESULTS   NEGATIVE  121 

close  the  case  by  saying  that  nothing  of  snch  a 
nature  could  be  quoted  in  the  New  Testament,  for 
we  must  take  things  as  they  are,  and  the  facts  put 
an  end  to  the  expectation  that  no  non-Christian 
matter  will  be  found  in  the  Christian  writings. 

Paul  and  his  companion-writers,  especially  the 
writer  to  the  Hebrews,  sometimes  express  faith  in 
Christ  in  terms  of  the  sacrificial  system  of  the  Old 
Testament.  In  the  ancient  Scriptures  that  system 
was  very  prominent :  therefore  it  has  been  held  to 
be  truly  expressive  of  the  divine  mind  and  en- 
titled to  contribute  its  idea  to  Christianity.  Old- 
Testament  religion,  it  is  said,  was  sacrificial, 
expressible  in  terms  of  altar  and  priesthood,  and 
therefore  New-Testament  religion  must  be  of  the 
same  nature.  The  New  Testament  does  not  abound 
in  sacrificial  terms  illustrative  of  the  gospel,  but 
they  exist,  and  from  the  old  method  of  using  the 
Scriptures  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  sacrificial 
idea  has  been  read  into  much  biblical  language 
that  did  not  properly  contain  it.  So  the  idea 
entered  theology,  and  popular  religion,  with  great 
power.  How  full  the  hymns  used  to  be  of  sacri- 
ficial language !  and  how  steadily  have  theology 
and  preaching  held  to  the  necessity  of  putting  the 


122         THE    SCRIPTURES   IN    THEOLOGY 

gospel  of  salvation  in  terms  of  altar  and  sacrifice ! 
But  more  recently  the  sacrificial  idea  has  been 
more  closely  examined.  It  has  been  noticed  that 
sacrifice  is  no  specialty  of  the  Old-Testament 
religion,  but  a  universal  practice  of  antiquity ; 
that  in  the  practice  of  the  Old  Testament  sacri- 
fice stood  as  an  institution  within  the  covenant- 
relation  between  God  and  man,  and  never  served 
as  a  means  by  which  man  was  to  enter  that 
relation ;  that  the  growth  of  the  elaborate  sacri- 
ficial system  in  Israel  was  gradual,  and  came  to 
its  completion  as  an  instrument  for  building  up 
nationalism,  rather  than  as  a  means  of  access  to 
God;  that  its  completion  was  readied  through 
religious  decline  rather  than  through  spiritual 
advancement;  that  the  prophets  and  psalmists, 
the  best  religious  teachers  in  Israel,  disparaged 
Baorifice  and  pleaded  for  religion  in  the  soul  and 
the  conduct;  and  that  Jesus  Christ  himself  was 
silent  concerning  sacrifice,  and  like  the  prophets 
urged  that  God  called  for  religion  of  another  kind. 
All  this  tends  to  settle  the  question  whether  Jew- 
ish altars  truly  represent  the  gospel  at  all,  or  even 
symbolize  the  reality  that  is  brought  to  us  by 
Jesus  Christ.  The  Christian  revelation  decides 
the  question  in  the  negative.    We  may  be  sure  that 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  123 

God  does  not  require  us  to  cast  our  conceptions 
of  divine  realities  in  the  mould  of  institutions  that 
are  not  alive  to  our  day  and  generation,  —  least 
of  all  in  terms  of  an  institution  that  Christ 
silently  extinguished.  Pie-Christian  light  is  not 
as  bright  as  Christian  light,  and  cannot  illumine 
the  Christian  reality.  So  when  we  find  allusions 
to  altar-sacrifice  in  the  New  Testament  we  read 
them  as  illustrations  of  sacred  truth  from  sacred 
institutions,  used  when  they  were  useful.  While 
the  institutions  were  still  alive  and  suggestive  of 
spiritual  meanings  they  were  helpful  for  illustra- 
tion of  "  redeeming  grace  and  dying  love,"  but 
they  formed  no  part  of  the  permanent  setting  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  theology  does  not  draw 
nearer  to  accordance  with  the  Christian  element 
when  it  sets  Christ  forth  in  terms  of  altar-sacrifice. 
There  is  a  genuine  Christian  idea  of  sacrifice,  but 
it  rises  high  above  the  world  of  altars.  The  cross 
is  the  very  throne  of  sacrifice,  but  it  is  not  an 
altar.  The  interpreting  of  the  Christian  idea  of 
sacrifice  in  terms  of  Jewish  altars  has  done  more 
than  can  be  told  to  conceal  this  higher  Christian 
meaning.  The  God  whom  Christ  reveals  delights 
in  such  sacrifices  as  the  spirit  of  the  cross  pours 
out,  but  has  no  pleasure  in  victims  of  the  altar. 


124         THE   SCRIPTURES   IX   THEOLOGY 

Jesus,  revealing  God,  has  remanded  the  entire 
system  of  altar-saerifice  to  the  history  of  religion, 
with  all  that  it  brings  into  religious  teaching,  and 
has  established  for  permanence  that  other  and 
higher  doctrine  of  sacrifice  which  belongs  to  the 
religion  of  the  Spirit.  So  although  Jewish  altars 
are  remembered  in  the  New  Testament,  we  learn 
ourselves  to  remember  them  with  all  their  world 
as  something  that  Christ  has  relegated  to  the  past, 
that  we  may  fill  our  theology  from  the  eternal 
sources. 

These  illustrations  show  what  our  principle  is, 
—  it  is  simply  the  law  that  we  must  set  the  gospel 
by  itself  and  keep  it  the]  We  must  not  bind  in 
witli  the  gospel  of  God  thoughts  that  originated 
and  took  on  their  quality  where  God  was  not 
known  as  he  is  known  in  Chlif  To  Christian 
theology  is  entrusted  the  work  and  privilege  of 
setting  the  gospel  by  itself,  and  it  must  use  the 
Scriptures  with  this  end  in  view.  The  negative 
or  excluding  part  of  this  work  lias  been  before  us 
in  the  present  hour.  The  work  of  separation  has 
never  been  thoroughly  done,  and  the  result  is  that 
the  genuine  Christian  reverence  still  holds  firmly  on 
to  much  that  is  not  Christian.  The  great  distinc- 
tion cannot  be  made  in  a  day,  and  if  someone  were 


RESULTS  NEGATIVE  125 

now  to  draw  it  with  perfect  correctness  according 
to  the  mind  of  Christ  it  would  not  be  accepted  at 
once  by  the  Christian  people.  It  is  a  work  of 
time.  But  we  can  at  least  see  of  what  nature  the 
undertaking  is,  and  devote  ourselves  to  it  with  an 
honest  heart.  Before  the  great  distinction  can  be 
made,  it  is  evidently  necessary  that  that  rich  body 
of  truth  of  which  I  spoke  in  the  second  lecture 
should  be  more  clearly  perceived  as  something  by 
itself.  That  body  of  truth  concerning  God  and 
ourselves  is  the  permanent  element  in  the  thought 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  all  else  is  the  passing.  That 
body  of  truth  is  the  eternal  element  in  theology 
also,  and  all  else  we  must  regard  as  not  only 
passing  but  past.  The  distinction  between  the 
transient  and  the  abiding  in  the  Bible  has  never 
yet  been  properly  wrought  out.  The  establishing 
and  defining  of  that  distinction  will  determine 
the  use  of  the  Scriptures  in  theology. 

The  searching  study  of  the  Bible  that  is  now  in 
progress  will  help  us  in  this  work.  The  Scriptures 
are  now  being  differentiated,  so  to  speak,  into  their 
various  layers  of  spiritual  value  and  power.  The 
criticism  that  is  so  distrusted  is  preparing  for  the 
hands  of  theology  the  real  book,  with  the  eternal 
light  on  its  highest  parts.     When  the  passing  and 


126  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN  THEOLOGY 

the  permanent,  the  old  and  the  new,  the  non- 
Christian  and  the  Christian,  have  been  well  distin- 
guished, theology  will  have  the  unmixed  divine  for 
its  material.  At  that  time  the  topics  in  the  theo- 
logical system  will  be  less  numerous,  and  we  shall 
cover  the  field  by  smaller  books  than  our  fathers 
used  to  write,  —  not  because  we  know  less  of  God, 
but  because  we  know  more,  and  what  we  know  is 
more  concentrated  in  eternal  reality.  The  topics 
will  be  less  in  number,  but  there  will  be  no  infe- 
rior matters  for  us  to  elevate  by  argument  to  the 
rank  of  the  superior,  and  no  pieces  of  treacherous 
trestle-work  to  connect  the  rock-laid  stretches  of 
our  road.  The  subject-matter  of  theology  will  ap- 
peal to  the  highest  spiritual  sense  of  the  soul  in 
fellowship  with  God.  Toward  the  coming  of  such 
a  day  we  may  work  with  confidence  that  our  labor 
is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord ;  and  some  glimpses  of 
its  advantage  over  the  present  we  may  see  in  our 
next  hour  together. 


IV 
RESULTS   POSITIVE 

If  I  say  that  the  Christian  element  alone  should 
enter  from  the  Scriptures  into  theology,  the  state- 
ment may  seem  to  have  a  negative  sound,  as  if  the 
main  effect  would  consist  in  eliminations  and  omis- 
sions. Such  effects  will  follow,  as  we  have  seen, 
much  to  the  benefit  of  theology,  but  it  would  be  a 
great  mistake  to  imagine  this  the  chief  result. 
The  Christian  element  from  the  Scriptures  is  to 
enter  theology :  it  is  to  enter  alone,  in  all  its  majesty, 
and  fill  the  whole  place.  This  is  a  great  and 
mighty  word.  It  is  the  word  of  light  and  hope  for 
theology,  for  if  the  Christian  element  does  come  in 
alone  we  shall  have  a  theology,  never  finished, 
indeed,  but  ever  growing,  that  will  be  true  forever. 
I  am  not  to  construct  that  theology  to-day,  fasci- 
nating though  the  attempt  appears,  but  there  are 
three  elements  in  the  making  of  it  of  which  I  must 
speak.  I  wish  to  trace  the  Christian  element  out 
of  the  Scriptures  into  theology,  to  show  with  what 
power  and  glory  it  enters,  and  to  indicate  the  posi- 


128  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

tion  in  which  the  Scriptures  are  found  after  their 
contribution  has  thus  been  made. 

The  Christian  element  comes  in  from  the  Bible 
as  a  whole.  We  have  seen  that  the  pre-Christian 
element  is  not  all  found  in  the  older  writings ;  and 
neither  is  the  Christian  element  all  found  in  the 
writings  of  Christian  date.  The  Old  Testament  is 
often  disparaged,  and  has  even  been  called  the  mill- 
stone on  the  neck  of  Christianity.  We  might 
expect  that  from  the  strictly  Christian  point  of  view 
it  would  appear  at  much  disadvantage,  and  that 
when  its  excessive  influence  had  been  removed 
Christianity  would  gladly  think  of  it  as  a  millstone 
thrown  off.  But  it  proves  otherwise.  When  the 
excessive  influence  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been 
thrown  off  from  theology,  the  Old  Testament 
begins  to  be  appreciated.  The  conception  of  God 
and  his  relations  to  men  which  Jesus  brought  did 
not  break  with  him  into  a  world  where  it  was 
entirely  new.  Supreme  truths  do  not  come  in 
that  way:  they  have  to  rise  as  by  a  dawning.  In 
the  Old  Testament,  though  not  there  alone  since 
the  earth  is  the  Lord's,  the  Christian  truth  was 
already  present,  though  still  mingled  with  much 
that  must  be  left  behind. 

Jesus  came  in  the  line  of  the  prophets,  —  not  of 


RESULTS  POSITIVE  129 

the  priests  or  lawmakers,  but  of  the  prophets. 
His  gospel  was  not  a  ritual  of  access  to  God,  or  a 
code  of  laws,  but  a  revelation  of  truth  in  life, 
and  therein  it  was  a  prophetic  word.  But  if 
Jesus  came  in  the  line  of  the  prophets,  the  proph- 
ets were  in  the  line  that  led  to  Jesus.  It  was 
the  line  of  men  who  in  some  good  degree  saw 
God  as  he  is,  and  told  men  what  they  saw. 
When  Jesus  came  he  took  up  '  the  prophetic 
message  and  carried  it  on  to  fulness.  Accordingly 
we  find  the  prophets  bringing  their  contribution  of 
truly  Christian  utterance  to  the  service  of  theology. 
Not  perfectly,  yet  in  great  measure,  their  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord'  agreed  with  that  of  Jesus,  and 
they  preached  the  claims  of  such  a  God  as  he 
revealed.  So  they  contribute  to  the  stock  of 
expression  wherein  we  find  knowledge  of  the  Liv- 
ing One,  and  many  of  their  words  concerning  him 
are  among  the  noblest  that  we  possess. 

With  the  prophets  bringing  Christian  truth  come 
the  psalmists,  whose  songs  have  always  served  for 
expression  of  the  Christian  heart.  How  poor  we 
should  be  without  the  Psalms!  and  as  they  serve 
the  high  purpose  of  religion,  so  they  contribute  to 
theology,  for  they  sing  out  the  view  of  God  that 
accords  with  the  Christian  vision.      In  this  they 

9 


130         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

have  done  Christian  service  never  to  be  superseded, 
for  they  have  illustrated  the  feeling  that  corre- 
sponds to  the  true  relation  of  men  to  God  when 
it  is  livingly  realized.  Into  theology  they  bring 
this  invaluable  contribution  in  the  realm  of  feel- 
ing, and  so  they  help  us  to  remember  that  our 
sacred  science  is  not  of  the  intellect  alone.  By  the 
best  of  the  psalmists  this  helpful  work  is  well-nigh 
perfectly  done.  The  whole  group  brings  pathetic 
contribution  also  to  the  history  of  religion  and  of 
theology,  for  some  of  the  psalmists  pass  before  us 
as  devout  souls  feeling  their  way  through  the 
moral  perplexities  of  life,  and  seeking  a  faith  that 
could  survive  amid  the  darkness  of  the  world. 
They  illustrate  too  the  superiority  of  Christ.  In 
their  time  love  to  men,  especially  to  enemies,  had 
not  become  a  part  of  religion,  and  so  they  often 
fall  far  below  the  Christian  level.  The  one  hun- 
dred and  ninth  Psalm  makes  us  thankful  for  the 
dying  prayer  of  Stephen. 

I  said  that  Jesus  came  not  in  the  line  of  law- 
makers or  of  priests.  That  the  gospel  is  a  new 
law  was  indeed  a  doctrine  early  accepted  among 
Christians,  but  it  never  came  from  Christ.  That 
the  gospel  is  a  new  ritual  of  sacramental  worship, 
with  priesthood  and  altar  at  its  very  heart,  innu- 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  131 

merable  Christians  still  believe,  but  it  has  no  foun- 
dation in  what  the  Master  taught.  That  Christ 
effects  a  new  propitiation  of  God  is  held  by  many 
as  the  yery  substance  of  the  gospel;  but  when 
we  see  how  Jesus  thought  of  God  and  offered  his 
grace  to  sinful  men,  his  God  appears  to  need  no 
such  propitiation  as  was  offered  in  old  time  when 
God  was  known  less  truly.  Yet  this  is  not  to  say 
that  priesthood  and  law  have  nothing  Christian  in 
them  and  offer  nothing  to  theology.  Priesthood 
brings  less  than  law.  The  idea  of  priesthood  is 
swallowed  up  in  the  larger  idea  of  access  to  God, 
—  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  —  and  of  help 
from  one  to  another  in  access  to  God.  As  for  law, 
the  idea  of  obligation  which  it  enshrines  is  per- 
fectly Christian,  just  as  it  is  perfectly  natural  and 
eternal.  Christ  preserves  and  honors  it,  but  does 
better  for  men  than  lawgiving,  by  lifegiving  and 
writing  the  will  of  God  upon  the  heart.  And  in  the 
old  historic  law,  a  product  of  ages  of  religion,  great 
truth  concerning  God  and  the  relation  of  men  to 
him  shines  forth.  Right  moral  demands  are  there, 
which  Jesus  reasserted,  re-enforced,  and  showed  in 
deeper  meaning.  Not  everything  in  the  ancient 
law  is  Christian,  but  the  claim  of  God  is  real,  and 
the  relation  that  renders  law  sacred  exists  forever. 


132  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

Besides  the  distinctly  Christian  element,  the  Old 
Testament  puts  at  the  service  of  theology  a  mass 
of  suggestive  and  illuminating  history.  It  is  his- 
tory of  growth  toward  true  knowledge  of  God. 
In  it  we  see  the  conception  of  God  and  the  rela- 
tion of  men  to  him  struggling  up  from  low  and 
partial  forms,  and  cleansing  itself  toward  discern- 
ment of  the  perfect  love  and  holiness.  They  who 
like  may  call  this  progress  in  the  thought  of  God 
a  purely  human  development,  but  a  clear-eyed 
theology  will  always  see  in  it  also  the  onward- 
moving  God,  leading  men  toward  better  knowledge 
of  himself.  The  progressive  knowledge  came  in 
accordance  with  the  nature  of  advancing  man,  but 
it  came  none  the  less  in  accordance  with  the  will 
of  the  revealing  God.  What  life  and  power  does 
this  interpretation  pour  into  the  Old  Testament! 
There  is  knowledge  of  the  highest  even  yet  to  be 
gained  from  the  manner  in  which  the  highest  be- 
came known. 

Indeed,  the  knowledge  of  this  progressiveness  is 
a  contribution  to  theology.  It  means  that  in  the 
earlier  times  God  was  not  altogether  rightly  known, 
— from  which  it  follows  that  actions  were  attributed 
to  him  that  were  not  his.  We  used  to  assume  that 
the  God  of  Jesus  Christ  was  actually  represented 


RESULTS  POSITIVE  133 

in  all  deeds  and  words  attributed,  to  God  through- 
out the  Bible.  Then  we  had  to  reconcile  all  these 
words  and  deeds  with  the  character  of  God  as  we 
know  it  in  Christ.  Often  that  could  not  be  done. 
The  endeavor  disgusted  many  at  the  moral  insin- 
cerity which  they  felt  that  it  implied,  and  unsettled 
the  idea  of  the  divine  character  for  a  host  of  Chris- 
tians. That  was  one  of  the  practices  that  came 
near  to  making  the  Old  Testament  indeed  a  mill- 
stone on  the  neck  of  Christianity.  But  now  we 
read  in  the  Old  Testament  the  history  of  religion. 
We  find  realistic  pictures  of  ethical  and  religious 
life  all  along  the  way,  and  see  how  men  thought  of 
God  from  stage  to  stage  of  their  advancing  life. 
We  are  not  required  to  think  that  he  was  rightly 
pictured  on  this  page  or  that.  We  are  required 
instead  to  exercise  our  moral  judgment  all  the  way, 
and  call  things  honestly  by  their  right  names,  and 
disapprove  what  the  Christian  spirit  disapproves, 
and  ascribe  to  God  only  what  is  worthy  of  the  God 
whom  we  know  in  Christ.  Thus  the  Scriptures, 
rightly  read,  deliver  to  theology  one  clear  and  sin- 
gle doctrine  of  God,  the  Christian  doctrine.  What 
we  do  find  in  those  older  books  is  the  thought  of 
God  growing  finer  and  truer  up  toward  Christ, 
until  at  length  a  prophet,  adding  to  the  thought  of 


134         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN   THEOLOGY 

physical  transcendence  the  vision  of  moral  beauty, 
can  say,  "  Thus  saith  the  high  and  lofty  One  that 
inhabiteth  eternity,  whose  name  is  Holy:  I  dwell 
in  the  high  and  holy  place,  with  him  also  that  is  of 
a  contrite  and  humble  spirit,  to  revive  the  spirit  of 
the  humble,  and  to  revive  the  heart  of  the  contrite 
ones.  For  I  will  not  contend  forever,  neither  will 
I  be  always  wroth  :  for  the  spirit  should  fail  before 
me,  and  the  souls  which  I  have  made." 

The  heart  of  the  Christian  contribution  comes 
into  theology,  as  I  need  not  say  again,  as  the  direct 
personal  gift  of  Jesus  Christ.  To  this  we  will  re- 
turn after  a  moment,  when  we  have  seen  in  what 
living  form  the  Christian  element  moves  on  into 
theology  from  the  writings  that  form  the  latter 
part  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  of  this  latter  part  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  part  after  the  Gospels,  that  it 
brings  to  theology  the  written  statements  of  Paul 
and  other  apostolic  men  concerning  God  and  Christ. 
We  have  here  a  vital  part  of  the  revelation  itself. 
The  latter  part  of  the  New  Testament  brings  to 
theology  the  vision  of  the  Christian  revelation  do- 
ing its  work,  and  thereby  illustrating  its  nature. 
Here  we  see  in  what  power  it  went  forth  from 
Christ,  what  life  it  produced,  what  inner  experience 


RESULTS  POSITIVE  135 

it  initiated,  what  transformations  it  wrought,  what 
thoughts  it  suggested,  what  duties  it  brought  home, 
what  power  it  imparted,  what  faults  it  overcame, 
what  aspirations  it  awakened,  what  character  it 
breathed  into  men.  We  see  what  leaders  it  raised 
up,  what  teaching  it  inspired,  what  writings  it 
brought  forth  for  the  common  service.  We  behold 
the  indwelling  Spirit  working  mightily  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  gift  of  Christ.  All  this  we  see  to- 
gether with  the  limitations  that  were  upon  the 
gospel,  and  the  human  causes  that  restrained  it 
from  perfect  work.  We  observe  how  it  entered 
into  union  with  ideas  that  it  found  in  the  world, 
and  partly  assimilated  them  to  itself  and  partly 
became  assimilated  to  them,  in  this  doing  the  inevi- 
table. In  a  word,  we  see  how  Christ  had  cast 
forth  his  gift  into  the  world  of  men,  to  be  cared 
for  there  by  the  providence  of  his  Father  and  the 
energy  of  the  abiding  Spirit. 

Here  theology  learns  what  it  is  that  it  receives 
from  Christ.  The  latter  half  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment utterly  refutes  the  idea  that  Christianity  is 
a  bod}'  of  statements,  a  deposit,  an  unchange- 
able substance,  a  doctrine  formulated  once  for  all. 
Christianity  appears  on  these  pages  as  a  living  and 
constantly  changing  thing.     Jesus  lived  and  gave 


136         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

forth  his  influence ;  and  within  the  New  Testament 
that  tells  of  him  we  find  the  harvest  from  his  influ- 
ence springing  up  in  half  a  dozen  different  forms. 
No  one  of  them  is  identical,  in  expression  or  in 
thought,  with  his  direct  and  personal  gift.  The 
Pauline  Christianity,  and  the  Johannine,  and  all 
the  others,  were  developments  from  him,  but  they 
were  developments.  In  each  he  was  reproduced 
with  changes.  And  they  were  not  alike.  They  all 
had  one  spiritual  origin,  but  they  differed  widely  in 
their  ways  of  going  forth  therefrom.  In  other 
words,  the  gift  of  Christ  began  its  work  by  taking 
new  forms  immediately.  It  was  altered  in  going 
from  Jesus  to  Paul,  and  from  Jesus  to  John ;  and 
the  alterations  in  the  two  movements  were  not  the 
same.  Theological  thought  has  always  been  vary- 
ing, but  it  never  showed  larger  variation  in  so 
short  a  time  than  between  the  days  of  Jesus  and 
the  last  writing  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  idea  that  Christianity  is  an  unchangeable 
deposit  of  doctrine  was  early  accepted,  and  began 
to  appear  even  within  the  New  Testament.  But 
instead  Christianity  was  a  living  and  growing 
power,  with  a  method  of  its  own.  It  was  a  body 
of  truth,  a  body  of  reality,  to  be  apprehended  and 
experienced ;  and  it  was  vital  truth,  or  vital  real- 


KESULTS   POSITIVE  137 

ity,  cast  forth  alive  into  the  fertile  field  of  life. 
Just  for  the  reason  that  it  was  truth  unchangeable, 
or  reality  eternal,  it  was  suggestive  in  an  infinite 
variety  of  ways.  The  one  thing  certain  was  that 
the  gift  of  Christ  would  take  an  endless  variety 
of  forms.  The  multiplication  table  has  but  one. 
Large  spiritual  truth  put  into  life  cannot  be  kept 
uniform.  So  the  testimony  of  Jesus  concerning 
God  and  men  made  absolutely  certain  a  long  and 
changing  course  of  Christian  theology.  Nothing 
so  rich  in  life  and  promise  of  enlargement  was 
ever  cast  forth  into  the  world  as  the  gift  of 
Christ,  and  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the- 
ology, receiving  so  germinant  and  growing  a  force, 
must  follow  it  through  form  after  form,  always  the 
same  at  heart  but  varying  with  the  nature  and  the 
needs  of  successive  ages. 

From  this  brief  account  of  its  contents  let  us 
now  turn  to  see  with  what  glory  and  power  the 
Christian  element,  the  gift  of  Christ,  comes  from 
the  Scriptures  into  theology. 

It  comes  as  the  determining  element,  throwing 
light  upon  the  whole  method  of  theological  knowl- 
edge. From  what  has  just  been  said  it  is  plain 
in  what  manner  our  ideas  in  theology  are  to  be 
obtained   and  our  convictions    established,  —  not 


138         THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

by  means  of  direct  and  authoritative  statements 
deciding  each  point  for  us,  but  by  means  of  the 
light  that  is  thrown  upon  the  field  by  great  and 
controlling  truths.  Our  theological  certainties 
are  not  to  be  dictated  to  us:  we  are  to  be  borne 
on  to  them  by  the  sweep  of  great  realities.  And 
the  great  reality  that  is  to  sweep  us  on  to  our 
certainties  in  theology  is  that  truth,  or  body  of 
truth,  concerning  God  and  the  relations  of  men  to 
him  which  we  owe  to  Jesus  Christ. 

God  is  the  first  and  the  last,  and  our  conception 
of  God  will  rule  our  theology.  It  may  not  do  so 
at  once,  for  there  may  be  many  influences  that 
keep  incongruous  elements  for  a  time  together; 
but  in  the  end  the  doctrine  of  God  will  be. the  sun 
of  our  theological  system,  bringing  the  whole  into 
harmony.  The  degree  in  which  the  doctrine  of 
God  is  dominant  in  theology  is  the  measure  of  the 
degree  in  which  the  mind  has  attained  to  clearness 
in  spiritual  vision  and  straightforwardness  in  think- 
ing. A  true  theology  is  a  true  doctrine  of  God 
developed  and  applied. 

When  the  Christian  element  has  taken  its  place, 
we  have  for  the  sun  in  our  system  that  matchless 
conception  of  God  which  we  find  in  Christ.  God 
is  such  a  God  as  Jesus  lived  with:  this  is  one 


RESULTS  POSITIVE  139 

aspect.  God  is  such  a  God  as  Jesus  expressed: 
this  is  another.  God  is  such  a  God  as  Jesus 
taught  men  to  live  with:  this  is  yet  another. 
When  we  have  brought  together  the  elements  of 
character  and  relation  that  are  thus  revealed  to  us 
as  belonging  to  God,  we  begin  to  see  him  as  he  is. 
That  perfect  goodness  which  Jesus  helps  us  to  see, 
that  holiness,  love,  wisdom,  trustworthiness,  that 
strictness  of  paternal  judgment,  that  hatred  of  sin, 
that  eagerness  to  save,  that  grace  unto  the  utter- 
most, —  all  these  enter  in,  and  of  these  the  charac- 
ter is  composed.  Lo,  this  is  our  God.  For  the 
purposes  of  theology  this  conception  of  God  as 
he  is  must  take  possession  of  us,  until  we  see  all 
things  in  the  light  of  it  as  we  see  the  world  in  the 
light  of  the  sun.  Then  the  questions  of  theology 
rise  before  us.  Solutions  of  them  are  not  dictated 
to  us  by  external  authority:  we  have  to  think 
them  out  in  the  light  of  God.  What  is  the  sig- 
nificance of  man?  Man  is  the  beloved  creature  of 
such  a  God,  bearing  his  likeness.  What  is  sin? 
Sin  is  the  opposite  of  the  character  of  such  a  God, 
spoiling  such  a  creature.  What  is  salvation  ?  Sal- 
vation is  the  work  of  such  a  God  for  such  a  crea- 
ture against  such  an  evil.  How  is  salvation 
accomplished?     If  we  need  to  know,  it  is  accom- 


140         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

plished  as  such  a  God  will  accomplish  it.  What  is 
the  divine  life  in  man?  Life  with  such  a  God, 
wrought  by  such  a  God.  What  is  human  destiny? 
It  is  such  as  such  a  God  will  provide  for  such  a 
creature.  What  is  human  loss  and  ruin?  It  is 
separation  of  such  a  creature  from  such  a  God. 

We  may  not  be  able  to  reach  full  answers  to  all 
these  questions.  The  element  of  mystery  lies  large 
for  us  men  in  the  field  of  things  divine.  But  it  is 
our  privilege  to  accept  such  answers  as  spring 
from  Jesus'  doctrine  of  God.  If  someone  has 
bequeathed  us  doctrine  that  springs  from  a  lower 
conception,  it  is  for  us  to  decline  the  inheritance. 
Christian  theology  must  discern  the  God  and 
Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  take  doc- 
trine from  him  alone.  The  work  that  is  thus  in- 
dicated is  for  us  to  do.  It  has  not  been  done  for 
us.  We  have  to  judge  how  the  character  and  re- 
lations of  God  work  out  into  the  various  forms  of 
truth  that  we  call  doctrines.  We  have  the  help, 
negative  and  positive,  of  all  that  has  been  done 
before  us :  we  have  many  clear  words  of  our  Lord 
himself,  and  the  forms  in  which  apostles  east  the 
meaning  of  his  gospel,  and  the  long  unfolding  of 
theology  through  the  Christian  ages.  But  nothing 
that  others  have  done  exempts  us  from  our  task. 


RESULTS  POSITIVE  141 

For  ourselves,  in  our  own  time,  we  have  to  work 
out  the  substance  of  theology  in  the  Christian 
light.  We  need  have  no  fear  that  this  broad  and 
open  method  will  leave  us  without  doctrine.  It 
will  not  yield  us  doctrine  in  formulas,  but  it  will 
enrich  us  with  vital  conceptions  that  satisfy  the 
inmost  sense  of  what  is  good,  and  convictions  well 
adapted  to  perform  works  of  holy  power  in  actual 
life. 

When  the  Scriptures  thus  give  us  the  Chris- 
tian element  as  the  decisive  element,  they  help 
us  to  ground  our  doctrines  in  the  only  place 
where  a  sufficient  foundation  for  doctrines  so 
important  as  those  of  theology  can  be  obtained. 
Truth  concerning  man,  sin,  salvation,  duty,  des- 
tiny, is  rightly  grounded  in  truth  concerning  God. 
This  must  be  plain,  when  once  we  see  how  great 
the  doctrines  are.  Great  truth  must  be  greatly 
grounded,  and  God  alone  is  great  enough  to 
sustain  doctrines  like  those  of  theology.  How 
much  smaller  and  weaker  are  grounds  that  are 
often  offered  as  decisive  of  points  in  question, 
by  way  of  proof -text  and  specific  statement!  — 
as  when  it  is  said  that  the  question  of  destiny 
in  the  endless  life  is  decided  by  the  meaning 
and  usage  of  the  ambiguous  word  aionios ;    that 


142         THE   SCRIPTURES   IX   THEOLOGY 

"whether  Jesus  preached  to  the  dead  before  his 
resurrection,  and  so  by  implication  whether  he 
opened  a  door  of  hope,  is  to  be  decided  by  the 
grammatical  construction  of  a  complicated  sen- 
tence by  a  not  very  accurate  writer  of  Greek; 
and  that  whether  God  needed  to  be  reconciled 
to  sinners  as  well  as  sinners  to  God,  is  settled 
by  the  prevailing  usage,  which  can  be  only  the 
majority  usage,  of  certain  Greek  words  and  con- 
structions used  by  Paul.  Who  has  not  felt  that 
issues  so  vast  cannot  possibly  be  settled  except 
on  larger  grounds  than  these?  It  is  true  that 
the  value  of  these  proofs  has  been  found  in 
inspiration,  whereby  the  choice  of  words  as  well 
as  thoughts  was  traced  to  God.  Yet  even  then 
these  conclusive  testimonies  of  God  could  be 
discovered  only  through  careful  balancing  of 
human  judgment  in  grammar  and  lexicography. 
But  the  better  method  gives  us  better  founda- 
tions. Whether  God  needs  to  be  reconciled  to 
sinners  as  well  as  sinners  to  God,  depends  upon 
what  kind  of  God  he  is,  and  this  we  learn  from 
Christ.  The  question  of  destiny  in  the  endless 
life  is  to  be  determined  by  the  character  of  God, 
with  the  implications  that  it  contains  as  to  the 
significance  of  sin,  the  nature   of  salvation,  and 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  143 

the  relations  in  which  men  stand  to  him.  Whether 
Christ  preached  to  the  dead,  it  may  prove  that  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing,  and  we  may  not  suffer 
from  the  lack.  Whatever  accords  with  Christ's 
doctrine  of  God  is  true  in  theology;  whatever 
contradicts  it  is  not  true  in  theology ;  and  where- 
ever  it  is  indifferent  to  a  question  and  gives  no 
light  upon  it,  probably  that  question  is  not  vital 
in  theology.  This  best  of  foundations  the  abiding 
Christian  doctrines  have,  that  they  follow  by  sound 
reason  and  spiritual  fitness  from  that  conception 
of  God  which  we  owe  to  Christ. 

Here  we  should  note  that  the  Christian  ele- 
ment that  comes  into  theology  lies  in  the  field 
of  religion,  not  of  philosophy  or  metaphysics. 
The  words  of  Jesus,  his  example,  his  redeeming 
power,  his  transforming  influence,  all  move  in 
that  sphere  of  practical  relation  between  God 
and  men  which  is  the  sphere  of  religion.  No 
recorded  words  of  his  belong  to  other  parts  of 
life.  He  has  said  nothing  in  metaphysics  or 
philosophy.  The  metaphysical  aspects  of  the 
truth  that  he  uttered  he  has  left  to  be  thought 
out  by  men,  while  in  religion  -he  brought  them 
the  very  fulness  and  glory  of   God. 

This   fact   is   not   a  veto   upon  metaphysics  in 


144  THE   SCRIPTURES  IX   THEOLOGY 

theology.  Theology  must,  of  course,  follow  the 
thought  of  divine  realities  into  the  world  of  meta- 
physics. Such  work  was  begun  before  the  New 
Testament  was  completed,  and  efforts  to  shut  it 
out  from  theology  must  always  fail.  But  we 
must  learn  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  bind  the 
metaphysical  work  of  theology  to  such  Hebrew 
metaphysics  as  they  may  contain,  or  to  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  first  Christian  century.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  it  never  has  been  so  bound,  though  theo- 
logians have  often  spoken  as  if  it  ought  to  be. 
The  metaphysical  thought  that  influences  theology, 
both  scholastic  and  popular,  until  now,  is  not  He- 
brew, or  Pauline,  or  Johannine :  it  is  late  Greek, 
although  it  is  often  assumed  to  be  of  biblical 
origin  and  carry  with  it  scriptural  authority. 
Each  age  must  work  for  itself.  Our  philosoph- 
ical inquiries  concerning  God  and  the  soul  ought 
certainly  to  be  pursued  in  the  best  light  of  our 
day.  The  Bible  does  not  dictate  metaphysical 
science  or  psychology  from  the  past  to  modern 
thought,  any  more  than  it  dictates  natural  science. 
Remnants  of  science  upon  its  pages  belong  to 
their  own  past  time,  and  are  not  taught  from 
heaven  to  us.  Thus  if  Paul  had  really  believed  in 
a   trichotomy   of  human   nature   when   he   wrote 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  145 

the  prayer  that  the  Thessalonians  might  be  sanc- 
tified in  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  that  would  not 
have  been  a  divine  dictation  to  a  Christian  psy- 
chologist to-day.  God  wishes  his  children  to. 
move  along  with  their  race  in  the  acquirement 
of  knowledge.  Nevertheless,  theology  may  well 
call  attention  to  the  unspeakably  valuable  gift  that 
Jesus  has-  brought  to  philosophy  as  well  as  to 
religion  and  daily  life.  To  be  recognized  in  all 
fields,  Jesus  holds  up  to  faith  and  sight  a  living 
God.  He  takes  for  real,  and  teaches  us  to  take  for 
real,  a  God  who  knows  and  acts  and  cares.  If  there 
be  no  such  God,  theology  must  lose  its  being  and 
lapse  into  philosophy,  and  religion  must  sink  into 
superstition,  but  with  such  a  God  morality  and 
hope  belong  to  life  forever.  A  great  contribution 
Jesus  made  to  religion,  to  theology,  and  to  that 
universal  view  of  things  which  we  call  philosophy, 
when  he  so  calmly  assumed  the  living  Spirit  whom 
men  may  call  Father. 

When  the  Christian  element  from  the  Scriptures 
enters  thus  alone  to  theology,  it  comes  with  power 
to  render  theology  very  largely  independent  of 
biblical  criticism.  Entirely  independent  of  criti- 
cism it  can  never  be,  but  the  perilous  depend- 
ence  that  is  involved   in   older   methods   will  be 

10 


146         THE  SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

no  more  when  our  principle  has  found  its  appli- 
cation. 

As  long  as  we  think  that  the  vital  contribution 
conies  from  the  Bible  into  theology  in  the  form  of 
specific  statements  couched  in  inspired  words,  our 
dependence  is  plain.  We  are  compelled  to  grasp 
at  words.  Precision  is  indispensable :  uncertainty 
checks  us,  and  inaccuracy  admitted  to  our  work 
would  vitiate  the  whole.  If  we  are  to  bring  any- 
thing from  our  Lord  himself  with  his  full  author- 
ity we  must  know  exactly  what  he  said.  So  we 
must  have  our  inspired  documents  in  an  author- 
ized canon  and  an  unquestionable  text,  or  they  will 
not  possess  full  value.  We  become  interested  thus 
in  textual  criticism,  hoping  for  certainty.  Textual 
criticism  confirms  our  general  confidence,  but  slays 
our  hope  of  absolute  precision.  And  historical  crit- 
icism, which  is  a  valid  science,  tells  us  that  we  are 
less  certain  than  we  thought  of  the  very  words  that 
ho  did  utter :  memory  has  not  done  perfect  work  ; 
the  church,  adoring  but  misunderstanding,  some- 
times attributed  to  him  what  it  supposed  that  he 
taught;  later  interpretations  have  been  written 
back  into  what  he  said,  and  words  have  been  as- 
cribed to  him  that  represent  outcomes  from  his 
teaching  but  not  the  original  teaching  itself.   Even 


RESULTS  POSITIVE  147 

though  but  half  of  this  were  true,  it  is  enough  to 
shake  our  entire  theology  if  we  have  built  it  upon 
the  accuracy  of  written  records.  And  when  we 
have  been  brought  into  that  situation  we  shall  be 
sorely  tempted  to  lie  in  the  interest  of  the  truth, 
by  denying  or  ignoring  plain  facts  because  they 
undermine  our  method  and  endanger  our  theology. 
But  the  magnificent  gift  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the 
world  in  the  conception  of  God  and  the  relation  of 
men  to  him  has  been  so  imparted  and  received  that 
it  cannot  be  lost.  It  is  not  pinned  down  to  accu- 
racy of  manuscripts.  We  are  in  no  doubt  as  to 
what  it  is,  in  its  large  spiritual  meaning.  We  have 
seen  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  have  followed  his  vital  force  out  into  the 
Christian  life.  His  revelation  has  been  raised  to 
a  height  in  history  and  experience  where  historical 
criticism  upon  the  Gospels  cannot  destroy  it.  Not 
that  criticism  is  destined  to  destroy  the  Gospels ;  it 
is  changing  them  in  our  hands,  but  will  not  si- 
lence their  testimony  to  Christ,  or  leave  us  without 
sound  knowledge  of  his  life.  But  to  us,  when  we 
have  learned  the  use  of  the  Scriptures,  it  will  not 
matter  so  much  whether  that  magnificent  gift  has 
been  brought  to  us  in  the  very  words  of  Jesus,  or 
in  the  form  of  resulting  words,  uttered  by  men 


148         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

who  had  received  the  gift.  There  is  a  convincing 
illustration  close  at  hand.  No  one  hesitates  to 
take  the  saying,  "  God  is  love,"  as  a  keynote  in 
theology.  In  these  days,  in  fact,  we  rule  out 
every  theology  that  does  not  do  it  justice.  Yet 
this  is  no  written  word  of  Jesus:  it  expresses 
a  conclusion  drawn  by  men  from  the  effect  of  his 
revelation.  It  is  the  Christian  revelation  distilled 
through  the  alembic  of  the  human  spirit.  But  no 
one  has  ever  felt  that  it  was  not  just  as  good  a 
Christian  word  as  if  it  had  been  spoken  by  the 
Lord.  And  this  illustration  may  introduce  an- 
other. In  the  second  lecture  I  quoted  the  great 
sentence,  "  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that  worship 
him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  truth."  This 
saving  holds  rank  with  "God  is  love,"  as  an  un- 
doubted part  of  that  spiritual  revelation  which  we 
owe  to  Christ  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  it  is  quoted 
as  falling  directly  from  the  lips  of  Jesus,  and  it 
lias  always  been  regarded  as  his  immediate  utter- 
ance. But  now  it  appears  that  the  Fourth  Gospel 
brings  us  his  sayings  recast  by  the  writer:  per- 
haps, indeed,  it  is  the  work  of  a  later  spiritual 
genius  who  portrays  Jesus,  and  puts  words  in  his 
mouth,  as  he  conceives  him,  in  the  light  of  faith 
and  love  and  theological  reflection.     In  that  case 


RESULTS  POSITIVE  149 

this  saying  also,  instead  of  being  a  word  of  Jesus, 
is  a  generalization,  or  deduction,  resulting  from  the 
sum  of  Christ's  revealing.  And  what  if  it  is  ?  I 
have  seen  the  time  when  I  should  have  thought 
the  saying  lost  to  theology  and  robbed  of  its  re- 
vealing value  if  Jesus  had  not  uttered  it :  but  lost 
it  would  not  be.  Like  its  great  companion,  it  ex- 
presses a  central  truth  which  Jesus  so  taught  that 
men  could  utter  it;  and  thus  it  is  just  as  truly  a 
part  of  his  gift  as  if  he  had  uttered  it  himself. 

The  question  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  differing  so  widely  from  the  syn- 
optics, brings  contribution  to  theology,  is  one  of 
the  outstanding  questions  of  our  time,  upon  which 
of  course  the  present  limits  do  not  allow  me  to 
enter.  Only  of  late  has  it  taken  rank  as  a  ques- 
tion, within  the  knowledge  of  the  many,  but  it 
is  a  question  that  must  be  freely  discussed,  and 
decided  in  the  light  of  facts.  Certainly  the  Fourth 
Gospel  differs  far  from  a  simple  narrative,  and 
embodies  what  some  great  Christian  has  thought 
concerning  Jesus.  Hence  its  testimony  must  be 
compared  with  that  which  comes  from  other 
sources.  But  this  we  know,  that  it  lacks  nothing 
of  being  a  mighty  Christian  word,  uttering  in 
new  and  lofty  forms  that  truth   concerning   God 


150         THE   SCRIPTURES  IX   THEOLOGY 

and  life  of  which  Jesus  was  at  once  revealer  and 
revelation.  And  the  coming  of  such  a  word  as 
this  through  the  soul  and  experience  of  a  disciple 
is  a  mighty  Christian  work. 

From  our  vision  of  the  entering  to  theology  of 
the  contribution  of  the  Scriptures  we  gather 
plainly  enough  by  what  kind  of  studies  it  is  to 
be  brought  thither.  This  is  a  lesson  to  be  learned 
progressively.  There  is  a  stage  at  which  it  seems 
that  exegesis  may  bring  over  into  theology  what 
the  Scriptures  offer  it.  Learn  just  what  the 
writers  meant  to  say,  and  there  you  have  the  con- 
tribution, provided  by  them  directly.  There  is 
another  stage  at  which  it  is  perceived  that  larger 
study,  as  of  Biblical  Theology,  must  intervene : 
the  results  of  exegesis  must  be  examined,  classi- 
fied, interpreted,  handed  over  in  due  order  and 
succession.  And  there  is  yet  another  stage  at 
which  it  is  apparent  that  these  two  processes 
together,  indispensable  as  they  are,  come  short  of 
what  is  necessary.  We  become  longingly  aware 
of  the  demand  for  deep  and  true  spiritual  insight, 
the  Christian  heart  discerning,  the  sympathy  with 
the  mind  of  Christ  that  will  see  all  things  in  his 
light.  We  find  the  need  also  of  large  and  gen- 
erous   historical    perception,   discernment   of    the 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  1.51 

operation  of  living  forces,  power  to  distinguish 
between  living  truth  at  work  and  forms  of  words 
that  may  strive  to  express  it,  ability  to  read  the 
Bible  in  the  light  of  history,  vision  of  the  onward- 
moving  God  as  he  appears  in  ancient  story,  in 
Christ,  in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  that  ordered 
knowledge  of  him  which  we  call  theology.  One 
who  would  rightly  use  the  Scriptures  for  theology 
needs  an  interpreter's  skill,  a  saint's  insight,  and 
a  historian's  judgment. 

It  remains  to  speak  of  the  position  to  which  the 
Scriptures  themselves  will  attain  in  relation  to 
theology,  when  they  are  used  in  accordance  with 
our  principle. 

The  Scriptures  themselves  are  a  topic  in  the- 
ology. Every  theologian  has  to  treat  of  them. 
They  will  continue  to  be  a  topic  there  when  they 
are  used  as  contributing  their  Christian  element 
and  that  alone,  but  in  a  different  manner  from  the 
present,  and  a  manner  free  from  many  of  the  diffi- 
culties that  long  experience  has  made  familiar. 
The  doctrine  concerning  the  Scriptures,  as  it  then 
stands  in  theology,  will  be  a  doctrine  of  their  spirit- 
ual character  and  value,  and  not  a  doctrine  of  the 
manner  in  which  they  were  composed. 

We   know   what   position  the   doctrine   of    the 


152  THE   SCRIPTURES  IX  THEOLOGY 

Scriptures  usually  occupies  in  theology,  and  the 
reasons  for  it.  A  theologian  usually  defines  these 
documents  at  the  outset,  and  endeavors  to  show 
that  thev  were  written  under  a  divine  influence 
that  rendered  them  infallible  and  authoritative. 
If  he  does  not  claim  as  much  as  this,  he  must  at 
least  tell  what  he  does  think  about  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures.  Proof  of  inspiration  stands  at 
the  front  because  all  that  follows  is  supposed  to 
t  upon  the  evidence  of  these  writings,  which 
therefore  must  be  proved  sufficient  to  bear  the 
weight.  Those  who  follow  this  order  thereby 
acknowledge  that  if  they  should  fail  to  estab- 
lish their  doctrine  of  inspiration,  their  structure 
of  theology  would  be  insufficiently  supported. 
This  makes  the  theology  no  stronger  than  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration.  Many  theologians  have; 
been  well  aware  that  their  work  would  be  incon- 
clusive if  this  doctrine  did  not  stand,  and  have 
therefore  given  the  more  earnest  heed  to  define 
and  support  an  infallible  inspiration  in  their  sacred 

documents. 

But  theories  of  inspiration  have  lately  been 
passing  out  of  sight.  Modern  examination  of  the 
Bible  proceeds  mainly  without  reference  to  them. 
Dr.  Sanday's  book  on  Inspiration,  embodying  the 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  153 

Bampton  Lectures  of  1893,  is  the  last  important 
book  on  the  subject,  and  it  does  not  seem  probable 
that  any  other  discussion  from  an  equally  scholarly 
source  will  soon  appear.  It  is  coming  to  be  no- 
ticed that  about  the  actual  writing  of  these  sacred 
books  we  can  discover  very  little.  The  authors 
are  largely  unknown.  Inductive  study  of  the 
books  yields  no  clear  information  as  to  the  nature 
and  degree  of  divine  influence  under  which  they 
were  composed,  and  deductive  arguments,  or  a  pri- 
ori theories,  prove  nothing  in  such  a  case.  So 
more  and  more  the  Scriptures  are  being  examined 
and  used  in  the  light  of  what  they  are  actually 
found  to  be,  not  in  view  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  composed.  Not  as  documents  classed 
beforehand  as  unlike  all  others  are  they  coming  to 
offer  themselves  to  theology,  but  as  documents 
to  be  used  like  others  where  they  are  found  like 
others,  and  as  unlike  where  they  are  found  unlike. 
Doubtless  this  is  a  revolution  that  will  not  go 
backward.  Some  of  us  have  lived  from  the  days 
when  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  was  a  slightly  ad- 
vanced publication  to  the  days  when  the  Hastings 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible  is  conservative;  and  we 
do  not  expect  the  movement  to  be  reversed.  The 
treatment  of  the  Bible  in  the  historical  light  and 


154         THE    SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

not  in  view  of  exceptional  inspiration  is  the  method 
of  the  future,  —  or  rather  it  is  the  method  of  to-day. 
If  theology  does  not  wish  to  lose  touch  with  the 
biblical  studies  upon  which  it  is  dependent,  it  must 
accept  the  new  way. 

Many  expect  this  process  to  lead  to  abandon- 
ment of  the  Scriptures,  through  denial  of  their 
value;  but  in  fact  it  leads  in  quite  the  opposite 
direction.  It  gives  the  Scriptures  their  standing 
in  theology,  and  in  life,  on  the  ground  of  their 
intrinsic  value,  discovered  as  value  is  normally 
discovered  by  men.  Not  because  of  an  inspira- 
tion that  eludes  us  when  we  seek  to  define  it,  but 
because  of  a  testimony  to  God  of  the  very  highest 
order,  confirmed  in  life  as  forever  true,  is  the 
Bible  to  be  prized.  What  Richard  Rothe  said 
will  come  true:  —  "Let  the  Bible  go  forth  into 
Christendom  as  it  is  in  itself,  as  a  book  like  other 
books,  without  allowing  any  dogmatic  theory  to 
assign  it  a  reserved  position  in  the  ranks  of 
books:  let  it  accomplish  what  it  can  of  itself 
through  its  own  character  and  through  that  which 
each  man  can  find  in  it  for  himself:  and  it  will 
accomplish  great  things."  This  is  a  better  word 
of  faith  than  any  that  insists  upon  an  outward 
badge  of  divineness  on  the  Bible,  and  it  is  the 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  155 

only  word  that  is  worthy  of  men  who  believe  the 
Bible  to  be  in  any  high  sense  from  God.  Surely 
God  would  not  send  forth  a  book  in  which  this 
normal  and  healthy  power  of  winning  moral  vic- 
tories did  not  reside. 

The  theology  that  is  built  on  the  Christian 
element  in  the  Scriptures  will  not  be  dependent 
upon  any  theory  of  inspiration.  It  will  have  no 
need  to  define  the  inspiration  under  which  the 
Bible  was  written,  and  will  not  stand  upon  the 
precarious  ground  of  such  definition.  It  will 
need  no  section  on  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. This  will  be  no  loss,  —  it  will  be  a  gain. 
I  have  often  told  my  students  that  I  could  show 
them  the  divine  value  of  the  Bible  far  more  con- 
vincingly if  I  could  simply  exhibit  to  them  the 
Bible  itself,  without  being  obliged  to  use  at  all 
the  ancient,  ambiguous,  confusing  word  "inspira- 
tion." The  word  has  lost  its  clearness  without 
losing  its  claim:  it  bears  the  urgency  of  sacred 
tradition  after  definableness  has  forsaken  it:  it  is 
now  an  enemy  to  clear  thought,  and  a  misleading 
guide  to  reverence  for  the  Scriptures.  It  will  be 
a  good  day  for  theology,  and  for  religion,  when 
we  fearlessly  take  the  Bible  for  exactly  what  it  is, 
with  an  abiding  value  resident  in  itself,  and  let  it 


156         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

serve  us  as  the  reporter  of  Christ  and  the  bearer 
of  his  revelation  of  God. 

Neither,  at  that  day,  will  theology  be  dependent 
upon  any  closely-defined  doctrine  of  the  Canon. 
If  we  hold  a  doctrine  of  infallible  inspiration,  giv- 
ing to  the  Scriptures  alone  the  full  authority  of 
God,  it  is  indispensable  that  we  know  by  God's 
own  testimony  what  these  Scriptures  are.  A  doc- 
trine of 'exclusive  inspiration  must  be  supported 
by  the  doctrine  of  an  unquestionable  Canon,  or  it 
will  be  no  sure  doctrine  of  divine  authority.  It  is 
very  remarkable,  as  I  have  already  said,  that  dis- 
cussions of  inspiration  have  so  frequently  ignored 
■  equally  important  companion-question  of  the 
Canon,  assuming  that  the  Protestant  Canon  is  cor- 
rect and  divinely  authorized.  Yet  assumption  is 
easier  than  proof,  for  the  history  of  the  Canon  dis- 
appoints the  hope  of  finding  divine  authority  in 
selection  of  the  books.  But  when  theology  is 
using  the  Scriptures  simply  as  bearer  of  the 
Christian  element  and  message,  it  is  free  to 
regard  the  Canon  as  a  historical  fact,  and  not  as 
a  crucial  point  in  present  doctrine.  The  Canon 
was  formed  by  the  judgment  of  the  church,  and 
we  inherit  it:  we  do  not  have  to  form  it  now,  or 
to  vindicate  the  manner  in  which  it  was  formed  of 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  157 

old.  If  the  latest  questions  in  forming  it  had 
been  decided  differently,  the  Christian  message 
would  have  been  the  same.  Nothing  depends 
for  theology  upon  the  canonicity  of  Esther  or  the 
Song  of  Songs,  of  the  Apocalypse  or  Second 
Peter,  —  all  of  them  once  disputed  books.  If 
the  discussion  over  the  Apocalypse  had  ended 
in  its  omission  from  the  Canon,  it  would  still 
have  been  the  same  book,  and  would  have 
taught  us  what  it  teaches  now.  Apart  from  all 
these  questions,  the  foundation  of  theology  stands 
sure,  in  the  spiritual  revelation  and  gift  of  Christ, 
which  is  known  from  its  quality,  not  from  the 
choice  of  sacred  books  in  the  religion  to  which 
it  gave  birth.  If  it  should  prove  that  the  choice 
might  have  been  better  made,  some  structures 
of  theology  might  tremble,  but  not  that  which 
is  built  upon  the  Christian  element  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

When  we  use  the  Bible  thus,  we  find  the  true 
meaning  and  use  of  Authority.  Authority  be- 
longs in  the  relation  between  God  and  us,  and 
only  there.  Authority  appeals  to  persons,  in 
their  personal  life.  It  is  correlative  to  heart  and 
will  and  loyalty,  not  to  opinion,  or  even  to  belief. 
In  theology  and  religion  the  idea  of  authority  has 


158         THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

been  made  to  cover  far  too  wide  a  field.  It  has 
been  conceived  as  requirement  of  assent,  alike  in 
matters  great  and  small.  The  Bible  has  been  sup- 
posed to  possess  divine  authority  in  support  of  all 
its  statements,  whether  concerning  the  history  of 
Israel,  the  temptation  of  Job,  the  longevity  of  the 
patriarchs,  or  the  love  of  God.  It  has  been  ac- 
counted a  part  of  religion  to  believe  that  Ruth 
married  Boaz,  that  Paul  suffered  shipwreck,  and 
that  the  genealogies  in  Luke  and  Matthew  are 
correct.  Many  evils  have  come  of  this,  of  which 
one  is  that  the  majestic  strength  of  divine  author- 
ity lias  been  set  to  support  weights  unworthy  of 
its  greatness.  By  the  doctrine  of  authority  and 
an  equal  Bible  God  lias  been  called  to  witness 
respecting  matters  with  which  the  soul  is  not  con- 
cerned, and  about  which  it  is  not  possible  to  feel 
that  he  requires  of  us  a  belief.  God  should  not 
be  invoked  as  witness  except  in  matters  of  eternal 
moment,  for  we  cannot  really  believe  that  he  would 
offer  his  authority  for  determination  of  any  other. 
In  matters  of  history  and  ordinary  opinion,  knowl- 
edge of  facts  is  the  only  authority  that  exists: 
God  himself  has  no  other  to  offer  us.  His  author- 
ity moves  in  another  realm,  and  when  we  set  it  in 
the  light  of  the  Christian  element  we  see  what  it 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  159 

means.  That  God  whom  Christ  makes  known  has 
authority  upon  us :  he  claims  us  and  has  full  right 
to  call  us  to  himself:  he  is  the  God  whom  we  have 
no  right  to  disregard  or  treat  disloyally.  His 
authority  is  in  himself:  his  is  the  will  that  we 
are  bound  to  do,  and  his  the  work  from  which 
we  must  not  turn  away.  And  the  truth  that 
Christ  tells  us  concerning  him  comes  home  to  us 
with  God's  own  authority  because  it  is  his  truth ; 
and  Christ  in  uttering  it  speaks  with  God's 
authority,  as  his  hearers  perceived,  and  is  One 
whose  word  and  call  it  is  our  bounden  duty  to 
obey;  and  the  Bible  itself,  so  far  as  it  brings 
us  that  supreme  utterance,  comes  with  the  au- 
thority of  truth,  of  Christ,  and  of  God.  It  is 
not  quite  enough  to  say  with  Coleridge  that  I 
know  the  Bible  to  be  divine  because  it  finds 
me.  It  has  the  right  to  find  me,  —  that  is  the 
real  point.  No  one  has  ever  attributed  to  the 
Bible  an  independent  authority  of  its  own :  always 
it  has  been  the  sovereign  voice  of  God  that 
sounded  through  it.  Even  so  it  is.  That 
sovereign  voice  does  sound  in  the  Bible,  in  the 
field  in  which  God  desires  to  exercise  authority 
upon  the  human  soul,  the  field  of  relation  with 
himself. 


100  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

Thus  we  are  enabled  to  see  clearly  what  is  the 
one  limitation  that  is  upon  us  in  the  construction 
of  our  Christian  theology.  There  is  a  limitation, 
but  it  is  not  in  the  form  of  a  biblical  veto  upon 
theological  thought.  God  has  acted  here  as  every- 
where, —  he  lias  given  truth,  not  as  a  deposit,  but 
as  seed  for  the  bearing  of  harvests.  He  has  not 
said  to  any  student  of  divine  things,  "Thus  far 
slialt  thou  go,  but  no  farther."  He  opens  to  us 
the  universe  and  eternity.  The  limit  that  we  are 
to  observe  is  not  set  by  measuring  the  dimensions 
of  the  Bible  over  upon  our  field.  It  is  set  by  the 
character  of  the  glorious  God  himself  as  in  Christ 
W6  know  it.  Our  theology  must  be  Christian, 
that  is  all,  — that  is,  it  must  set  forth  the  right 
God.  The  true  light  now  shineth,  and  in  it  we 
are  to  walk.  Yet  this  is  no  arbitrary  limitation, 
dictated  through  command ;  it  is  a  warning  that 
otherwise  we  cannot  get  it  right,  since  the  God 
and  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  God  who  exists. 
Nor  is  this  a  restraint:  it  is  an  infinite  enlarge- 
ment. God  desires  us  to  be  in  such  harmony 
with  his  high  character  as  to  give  the  name  of 
truth  only  to  that  which  corresponds  thereto. 
With  vision  thus  purified,  theology  will  go  on 
forever  seeing  more  and  more  of  that  eternal  glory 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  161 

which  is  practical  truth  for  daily  life,  and  gaming 
more  light  upon  the  mysteries  that  make  life  per- 
plexing to  the  soul. 

Before  I  leave  the  subject  I  must  speak  for  a 
moment  of  the  widespread  need  of  the  principle 
in  the  use  of  the  Scriptures  which  I  have  been 
commending.  There  is  scarcely  anything  that  the 
Christian  world  needs  more. 

I  tell  no  secret  —  though  perhaps  many  a  man 

has  wished  he  could  keep  it  a  secret —  when  I  say 

that  to  the  average  minister  to-day  the  Bible  that 

lies   on   his    pulpit   is   more    or   less  an  unsolved 

problem.     He  is  loyal  to  it,  and  not  for  his  right 

hand  would  he   degrade  it  or  do  it  wrong.     He 

longs  to  speak  with  authority  on  the  basis  of  its 

teaching,  and  feels  that  he  ought  to  be  able  so  to 

do.     He  knows  that  the  people  need  its  message 

in  full  power  and  clearness,  and  cannot  bear  to 

think  that  it  is  losing  influence  with  them.     Yet 

he  is  not  entirely  free  to  use  it.      Criticism  has 

altered  the  book  for  his  use,  but  just  how  far  he 

does  not  know.     Experience  has  altered  it  also. 

Parts  of  it  do  not  strike  his  soul  with  the  force 

of  spiritual  authority,  as  other  parts  do,  or  yield 

themselves    to    such   use   as    he    or    his    fathers 

11 


1G2  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

formerly  made  of  them.  Parts  are  inexpressibly 
rich  and  glorious.  He  is  supposed  to  use  it 
throughout  as  God's  very  word  to  men  now  liv- 
ing, and  he  retains  the  feeling  that  he  ought,  but 
he  cannot.  So  he  leaves  some  parts  unused,  and 
is  not  quite  sure  how  much  of  the  remainder  he 
may  freely  wield  as  the  sword  of  the  Spirit.  Yet 
he  must  use  his  Bible  constantly,  and  make  proc- 
lamation of  what  it  contains,  and  he  deeply 
wishes  that  he  had  sure  ground  for  a  practice 
that  would  satisfy  his  intelligence,  his  conscience, 
and  his  Christian  heart.  Some  ministers  do  not 
feel  thus,  but  many  do.  They  are  not  irreli- 
gious or  unbelieving,  either,  though  some  of  their 
brethren  may  account  them  so.  They  are  per- 
plexed in  the  presence  of  an  unsolved  problem. 

There  is  a  common  experience  that  may  suggest 
relief.  It  is  matter  of  common  experience  that 
every  lover  of  the  Bible  analyzes  the  book  into 
its  elements  as  best  he  can,  and  has  for  himself  a 
little  Bible  of  his  own  making  within  the  Bible, 
which  he  loves,  reads,  and  remembers  far  beyond 
the  rest.  Do  we  not  know  this  for  ourselves? 
One  who  has  not  done  this  is  thereby  revealed  as 
only  a  cool  reader,  not  a  lover  of  the  book.  Let 
the  worn  edges  of  any  well-used  Bible  tell  their 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  163 

story.  The  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  most  of  the 
Epistles,  the  finest  of  the  Psalms,  the  latter  part 
of  Isaiah,  passages  here  and  there  through  the 
remainder  of  the  book,  differing  in  every  case, 
these  make  up  each  one's  personal  edition  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  —  these  make  a  smaller  but 
dearer  Bible  for  every  one  of  us,  and  for  all 
readers  who  are  enamored  of  the  divine  message. 
This  distinguishing  and  selecting  we  have  always 
done  because  we  could  not  help  it:  it  was  a  part 
of  real  life  and  love.  But  we  have  done  it  more 
or  less  against  our  principles,  —  that  is,  against 
our  theories,  —  for  the  Bible  that  we  have  thus 
treated  with  the  favoritism  of  intelligent  interest 
was  supposed  to  have  one  equal  claim  throughout 
upon  our  reverence  and  attention.  But  we  have 
done  right:  now  let  us  do  the  same  thing  better. 
Let  us  do  it  on  principle,  intelligently,  without 
timid  hesitation,  and  for  all  uses,  whether  private 
or  public.  The  ministry  needs  to  do  exactly  this, 
and  such  application  of  our  principle  will  bring 
relief  to  its  perplexity.  Frankly  and  fearlessly 
differentiate  the  Bible  into  its  elements,  Chris- 
tian, Jewish,  historical,  traditional,  and  whatever 
they  may  be.  Let  the  mountains  rise,  let  the 
valleys  sink,  to  the  place  that  God  has  ordained 


164         THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

for  them.  Set  by  itself  that  body  of  truth  which 
our  Saviour  taught  concerning  God  and  religion, 
and  then  give  glory  where  glory  is  due.  Put  the 
Bible  to  its  true  use,  as  servant  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Speak  with  authority  the  truth  concerning  God 
and  man  which  he  revealed,  for  this  you  have 
full  right  to  do.  Proclaim  the  Christian  thought 
in  its  fulness  without  doubting  or  apology,  for  it 
is  true  forever.  But  do  not  claim  or  represent  or 
imply  that  everything  in  the  Bible  is  true  for- 
ever, or  bears  the  authority  of  God  for  living 
men  to-day.  Never  speak  as  if  it  were  so,  or 
encourage  the  people  to  believe  it.  Accept  no 
obligation  to  make  non-Christian  matter  Christian, 
or  to  keep  alive  what  Christ  has  done  to  death. 
Let  the  past  be  past  and  the  present  present,  the 
human  human  and  the  divine  divine.  When  you 
have  helped  the  Christian  element  in  the  Scrip- 
tures to  come  to  its  own,  you  will  have  your  word 
of  power,  differing  from  everything  else  in  divine 
energy.  Then,  too,  the  real  value  of  the  elements 
that  seem  discarded  through  discrimination  will 
begin  to  be  perceived,  and  the  usefulness  of  them 
for  illustration  of  the  Christian  message  will  be 
rightly  learned.  That  which  out  of  its  place  has 
been  an  embarrassment  will  be  in  its  place  a  help ; 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  165 

and  so  in  due  time  the  book  that  has  lain  an  un- 
solved problem  on  the  pulpit  will  be  again,  and 
will  continue,  an  instrument  of  power. 

The  Sunday  school  needs  as  keenly  as  the  pulpit 
to  accept  our  principle  and  put  the  Christian  ele- 
ment in  the  Scriptures  in  a  place  of  honor  by  itself. 
For  a  generation  now,  though  of  late  with  increas- 
ing exceptions,  the  Sunday  schools  have  been  using 
the  Bible  as  one  solid  whole,  which  they  treated 
as  a  uniform  and  equal  book.  To  go  through  it 
in  so  many  years  has  been  one  of  the  ideals  in 
method.  So  there  has  been  a  quarter's  lessons 
in  the  Christian  message,  and  then  another,  fre- 
quently, where  the  Christian  element  is  least. 
Meanwhile  it  has  been  constantly  maintained  that 
the  Sunday  school  was  intended  to  teach  religion, 
and  the  Christian  religion,  and  lead  the  pupils 
directly  to  the  Christian  life.  Along  with  this 
avowed  purpose,  the  management  of  the  lessons 
has  been  such  as  to  lead  people  to  suppose  that 
they  were  all  the  time  studying  religion,  and 
Christianity,  and  lingering  Sunday  by  Sunday 
near  the  gates  of  sound  conversion  to  Christ. 
But  much  of  the  time  they  have  been  doing  noth- 
ing of  the  kind:  they  have  been  studying  only 
history,   or  traditions,   or   institutions   once   con- 


166  THE   SCRIPTURES   IN   THEOLOGY 

nected  with  religion,  or  religion  in  superseded 
forms.  Sometimes  they  have  studied  matter  in- 
credible as  history,  but  urged  as  history  upon 
their  belief  by  the  authority  of  an  equal  inspira- 
tion. Christian  matter  and  non-Christian  have 
been  confounded,  and  even  practically  identified, 
by  this  long  misuse.  Not  far  in  the  future  the 
day  will  come  when  the  people  find  this  out;  and 
unless  the  lesson-makers  hear  the  warning  in  sea- 
son, by  and  by  there  will  come  a  great  reaction  of 
weariness  against  the  unreality  of  work  that  thus 
claims  to  be  more  religious,  and  more  Christian, 
than  it  really  is.  If  the  Sunday-school  work  is 
not  tq  be  turned  into  a  pathetic  failure,  the  lesson- 
makers  must  face  the  difficult  problem  of  distin- 
guishing the  Christian  element  in  the  Scriptures 
from  everything  else,  and  setting  it  forth  in 
its  own  superiority  and  spiritual  power.  The 
problem  of  bringing  this  true  distinction  to  its 
place  in  the  minds  of  the  people  is  a  difficult 
one  in  any  case,  and  it  is  the  harder  because  the 
Sunday  school  itself  has  long  been  systematically 
inculcating  the  doctrine  that  must  now  be  un- 
learned. But  there  is  no  other  way  than  to  mark 
the  distinction  between  these  things  that  so  widely 
differ,  aud  let  the  distinction  do  its  work.     Some 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  167 

may  fear  the  undertaking  as  if  it  were  infidel- 
ity, but  in  fact  it  is  the  best  safeguard  against 
infidelity. 

The  need  of  the  ministry  and  the  Sunday  school 
is  the  need  of  all  the  people  also.  For  want  of 
distinguishing  the  Christian  element  from  every- 
thing else  that  the  Bible  contains,  the  Christian 
people  are  suffering  far  more  than  they  know,  and 
with  them  is  suffering  the  name  and  power  of 
popular  Christianity.  They  are  aware  of  per- 
plexities for  which  there  is  really  no  relief  but 
this ;  but  this  way  of  relief  they  have  not  yet  put 
to  the  test,  and  for  the  most  part  they  are  afraid 
of  it.  There  is  a  vast  amount  of  honest  Chris- 
tian faith  practically  founded  on  the  Bible,  when 
it  ought  to  be  founded  directly  on  God.  Is  it  not 
founded  on  the  Bible?  for  if  people  are  asked 
why  they  hold  their  Christian  faith,  they  will 
answer  that  these  things  are  so  because  the  Bible 
tells  them  so:  it  is  through  the  Bible  that  they 
know  them,  and  because  of  the  Bible  that  they  be- 
lieve them.  Their  faith  is  precious,  and  they 
must  keep  it,  but  in  order  to  keep  it  they  must 
keep  the  Bible  just  as  it  is ;  and  in  order  to  keep 
the  Bible  just  as  it  is  they  feel  that  they  must 
believe  all  that  is  necessary  to  that  end.     It  is  in 


168         THE  SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

this  way  that  so  many  unimportant  beliefs  come  to 
be  taken  for  a  part  of  religion.  There  are  earnest 
souls  that  assent  to  many  a  belief  that  would 
otherwise  be  impossible  to  them,  lest  without  it 
they  should  lose  their  Bible.  Since  on  the  Bible 
rests  their  faith,  they  account  it  a  duty  and  privi- 
lege to  accept  anything  that  they  must,  lest  their 
Bible  should  slip  away.  And  then  the}r  meet  with 
changes  in  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  learn  that 
some  of  their  beliefs,  incidental  in  real  value  but 
not  to  them,  are  doubtful,  and  are  told  that  more 
changes  are  to  come ;  and  then  their  faith  trembles 

t  it  should  perish,  and  they  do  not  know  exactly 
what  it  needs  in  order  to  be  made  strong  and  free 
again.  So  they  maintain  their  Bible  the  more 
strenuously,  perhaps  by  arguments  that  will  not 
hold,  and  reassert  their  faith  with  an  apparent 
strength  that  is  really  an  expression  of  its  weak- 
ness. Most  sincerely  do  I  wish  that  this  descrip- 
tion could  be  proved  untrue,  but  I  know  that  it 
cannot. 

How  much  better  would  it  be  if  their  faith 
rested  directly  upon  the  real  object  of  faith ! 
The  object  of  faith  is  God.  What  the  troubled 
faith  needs  is  to  change  its  basis,  to  transfer  itself 
from   one   foundation   to  another.      The   present 


RESULTS   POSITIVE  169 

generation  of  Christians  scarcely  needs  anything 
else  more  than  to  change  the  foundation  of  its 
faith  from  the  Bible  to  God.  Yet  perhaps  those 
who  need  it  most  would  be  puzzled  to  know  just 
what  this  would  be.  I  have  told  students  of  this 
great  necessity,  and  been  met  in  reply  by  the 
question,  "  But  what  do  we  know  of  God,  except 
through  the  Bible  ? '  Yes,  and  what  do  we  know 
of  the  star  except  by  help  of  the  telescope  ?  —  and 
yet  the  telescope  is  not  the  star,  and  we  need  not 
be  told  that  the  telescope  is  given  us  in  order 
that  the  star  may  be  revealed.  The  Bible  is  the 
telescope,  and  God  is  the  star,  the  sun.  The  Bible 
is  a  means,  not  an  end;  a  help  to  faith,  not  an 
object  of  faith.  We  wrong  it  if  we  make  it  the 
foundation  of  our  faith :  God  must  be  foundation, 
as  well  as  object.  It  is  the  one  thing  needful,  not 
that  we  keep  our  Bible,  but  that  we  keep  our 
God.  We  must  know  him  as  in  Christ  he  is,  and 
must  know  no  other.  If  you  say  to  me,  "  This  I 
must  believe  and  this  reject,  lest  I  lose  my  Bible," 
I  say  to  you  in  answer,  "  This  I  must  believe  and 
this  reject,  lest  I  lose  my  God,"  —  lest  I  fail  to 
mark  him  as  he  is  in  Christ,  but  get  some  false 
conception  of  him,  and  bind  to  my  heart  some 
image  of  God  that  is  unlike  the  living  One  whom 


170  THE   SCRIPTURES  IN  THEOLOGY 

in  Christ  we  know.  Knowledge  of  him  as  he  is 
in  Christ  is  what  the  Bible  was  given  to  bring  us. 
If  in  any  of  its  parts  it  brings  us  anything  dif- 
ferent, it  is  our  Christian  privilege  and  duty  to 
mark  the  difference.  If  anything  in  the  Bible 
obscures  the  Christian  thought  of  God,  it  is  no 
part  of  the  abiding  Christian  gift;  let  it  not 
trouble  you:  leave  it  aside  if  it  darkens  that 
divine  face  which  Christ  reveals.  This  is  what 
the  Christian  people  need  to  learn.  We  must 
transfer  our  faith  from  the  book  that  reveals 
God  in  Christ,  to  God  in  Christ  whom  the  book 
reveals,  —  from  the  telescope  to  the  sun.  When 
we  have  done  this,  our  Christian  faith  will  rest 
upon  a  foundation  that  will  stand  forever. 


OTHER    BOOKS   BT  DR.    CLARKE 

An  Outline  of 
Christian  Theology 

Crown  8vo.     $2.50  net 

This  is  the  simplest,  clearest,  most  radical,  and  most  spiritual  theo- 
logical treatise  we  have  ever  seen.  It  is,  indeed,  in  these  four  characteris- 
tics rather  a  treatise  on  religion  than  on  theology.  It  is  vital, 
not  scholastic  ;  a  minister  to  largeness  of  life,  through  clearness  of 
thought.  .  .  .  To  ministers  holding  in  whole  or  in  part  the  new  philos- 
ophy, we  recommend  this  volume  as  showing  them  how  to  use  that  phil- 
osophy to  conserve,  nourish,  and  strengthen  the  old  faith. —  The  Outlook. 

We  have  read  it  with  great  interest.  Its  author,  though  so  modest  as 
not  to  prefix  the  word  "  Professor  "  to  his  name,  at  once  commands  our 
respect.  He  is  a  clear  thinker,  a  fine  scholar,  a  scientific  and  philosophi- 
cal theologian.  The  work  is  able,  it  is  stimulating,  it  is  fresh,  and  reveals 
him  in  touch  with  the  latest  thought  of  the  day.  It  is  in  many  respects 
an  epoch-making  book.  .  .  .  We  commend  this  book  to  any  who  desire 
to  get  the  clearest  statement  of  the  new  theology  that  can  be  found  in 
English.  —  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review. 

Professor  Marcus  Dods  writes : —  "  Has  it  ever  happened  to  any  of 
our  readers  to  take  up  a  work  on  systematic  theology,  with  the  familiar 
divisions,  'God,'  'Man,'  'Sin,'  'Christ,'  '  The  Holy  Spirit,'  'The 
Church,'  '  The  Last  Things,'  and  open  it  with  a  sigh  of  weariness  and 
dread,  and  find  himself  fascinated  and  enthralled,  and  compelled  to  read 
on  to  the  last  word  ?  Let  any  one  who  craves  a  new  experience  of  this 
kind,  procure  Dr.  Clarke's  '  Outline.'  We  guarantee  that  he  will  learn 
more,  with  greater  pleasure,  than  he  is  likely  to  learn  in  any  other 
systematic  theology." 

We  have  received  from  America  many  useful  contributions  to  theologi- 
cal literature,  but  few  that  surpass  this  either  as  theology  or  as  literature. 
—  British  Weekly. 


OTHER    BOOKS    BT    DR.    CLARKE 

A  Study  of 
Christian  Missions 

i2mo.     $1.25 

CONTENTS 

I.  The  Missionary  Character  of  Christianity.  II. 
The  Missionary  Motive  of  Christianity.  III.  The  Ob- 
ject in  Christian  Missions.  IV.  The  Field  of  Missions. 
V.  Christianity  and  Other  Religions.  VI.  Organiza- 
tion for  Missionary  Purposes.  VII.  Denominations  in 
Missions.  VIII.  The  Present  Crisis  in  Missions.  IX. 
'I'm.  Next  Needs  in  Missions.  X.  The  Outlook  in  Mis- 
sions.   XI.   The  Home  Side  of  Missions. 

No  more  valuable  publication  on  its  subject  is  known  to  us.  —  The 
Outlook. 

Heartily  commended  for  its  clear  statement  of  the  missionary  character 
of  Christianity,  its  analysis  of  the  missionary  motive,  of  the  present 
crisis  and  coming  needs,  of  the  outlook  for  missions  and  their  reflex 
action  upon  religious  life  at  home.  —  The  Churchman. 

To  the  thoughtful  student  of  mission  problems  his  discussion  will  be 
most  stimulating.  —  The  Sunday  School  Times. 

A  fresh  and  interesting  study  of  missions  viewed  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  new  theology.  —  The  Interior. 

A  searching  analysis  of  the  missionary  motive  as  a  development  and 
expression  of  the  Christian  religion.  — Review  of  Reviews. 


OTHER    BOOKS   BY  DR.   CLARKE 

CAN   I   BELIEVE   IN 
GOD   THE   FATHER? 

Lectures  Delivered  before  the  Har- 
vard Summer   School  of  Theology 

i2mo.     $1.00 

CONTENTS 

The  Practical  Argument  for  the  Being  of  God. 

Divine  Personality. 

The  Relation  Between  God  and  Men. 

The  Moral  Effect  of  the  Doctrine  of  God. 

Dr.  Clarke  has  handled  some  of  the  most  profound  speculations  in 
theology  with  rare  simplicity  and  force.  He  introduces  his  hearer  at 
once  to  an  exposition  of  the  practical  argument  for  the  being  of  God 
which  is  unusually  lucid  and  suggestive.  His  language  is  simple  and 
the  analysis  of  his  thoughts  perspicuous.  —  The  Churchman. 

There  is  no  more  devout  and  no  more  enlightening  writer  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Christianity  than  the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Newton  Clarke.  .  .  . 
Aside  from  its  relation  to  the  subject  under  discussion,  the  reading  of 
this  article  is  an  intellectual  delight,  it  is  so  completely  thought  out  and 
clearly  stated.  —  Brooklyn  Eagle. 

These  lectures  will  bear  the  test  of  careful  reading,  and  they  are  so 
interesting  that  they  may  be  read  with  pleasure  as  well  as  with  profit. 
—  Chicago  Advance. 

An  interesting  and  suggestive  defence  of  theism.  —  The  OiHlook. 


OTHER   BOOKS   BY  DR.   CLARKE 

What  Shall  We 
Think  0f  Christianity? 

The  Levering  Lectures  before  the 
Johns    Hopkins    University,  l8pp 

i2mo.    $i.co 

CONTENTS 

I.  The  Christian  People.  II.  The  Christian  Doc- 
trine.    III.    The  Christian  Power. 

A  singularly  beautiful  and  powerful  statement  of  the  essentials  of 
the  Christian  Religion,  clothed  in  an  exquisite  simplicity  of  form 
and  language,  while  its  crystal  clearness  of  thought  leads  the  reader 
deep  into  the  heart  of  the  truth  itself.  —  The  Christian  Advocate. 

.  .  .  The  address  of  a  cultured  man  to  cultured  hearers  ;  they 
are  intent  on  what  is  essential  and  vital  ;  they  deal  with  facts  rather 
than  theories;  the  note  of  realism  is  heard  throughout.  —  The  Outlook. 

We  cannot  but  recognize  the  noble  optimism,  the  religious  enthu- 
siasm, and  the  excellent  mental  poise  Dr.  Clarke  exhibits.  —  The 
Churchman. 

Prof.  Clarke  treats  his  theme  in  a  broad  fashion,  examines  the  his- 
torical development  of  the  Christian  people,  the  Christian  doctrine,  and 
the  Christian  power,  and  presents  the  results  of  his  investigation  in 
the  light  of  well  known  facts. —  N.Y.   Times  Saturday  Review. 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS,   Publishers 

IS3-I57    FIFTH    AVENUE,   NEW    YORK    CITY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


AUG   13  1937 


nr.T  18  1939 


FFR  13194)  iy 


~lW 


*%ss! 


IN  STACKS 


fEB  %%  1956 


FEB  2  2 1956  LI 


J\5^r 


■ 


SEP  Ifl  I960 


2Acr'63WS 


REC'D  UD 


^L_^ 


1963 


LD  21-5m  6,'37 


YB  27931 


v. 


235405 


'•  'C.!' 


*    •  i  '  * 


-» 


*»    . 


